TESTIMONIES 



OF THE 



ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 



THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



THE REV. EDWARD BURTON, D.D. 

$ t 

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH. 



SECOND EDITION WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS. 



T&ot>, r,(Auq e/c narepuv nccTepaq ha^e^Kemi ryv roiacvTrjv liavQiav 
a'TK&tiKvvQptv . Athanas. de Decret. Syn. Nic, §.27. Vol. I. p. 233. 



OXFORD, ; 

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 

MDCCCXXIX. 



INTRODUCTION. 



1HE object of the present work is to lay before 
the reader a series of passages extracted from the 
writings of those Fathers, who lived before the 
Council of Nice, and which appear to support the 
doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. It might 
seem hardly necessary to prove at much lengthy that 
the belief of those early Christians was most likely 
to be genuine and apostolical. That all corruptions 
are of gradual and successive growth, may be said 
to be a self-evident proposition : and that any doc- 
trine is most likely to have been pure and genuine 
at a period which was not far removed from its first 
promulgation, is surely as plain and undeniable, as 
that we are likely to find a stream more clear and 
uncorrupt, the nearer we approach its source. 

Let us compare Clement and Ignatius, who were 
contemporaries of the apostles, with ourselves. We 
can only learn the sentiments of the apostles from 
their writings. These have come down to us with 
the errors and corruptions which the lapse of eight- 
een centuries must unavoidably have introduced : 
we read them with a previous knowledge of different 
and opposite senses being deduced from the same 

a 2 



iv INTRODUCTION. 

passage : and the notions in which we have been 
brought up, if not a spirit of party and of prejudice, 
are likely to warp our judgments and influence our 
interpretations. But Clement and Ignatius, if they 
found things hard to be understood in the writings 
of the apostles, could refer for a solution of the diffi- 
culty either to the writers themselves, or to other 
apostles who had known them familiarly, and who 
had laboured together with them. There are some 
points of doctrine, of which it seems impossible to 
conceive, that Clement and Ignatius could be igno- 
rant. To suppose that they did not know whether 
Peter or Paul or John believed Jesus Christ to be 
essentially God, or a mere mortal man, seems as im- 
probable, nay, I would say, as impossible, as to sup- 
pose that they did not know, whether these apostles 
believed Jesus Christ to have been actually nailed to 
the cross. If Clement and Ignatius did know what 
was the belief of the apostles concerning the divinity 
or humanity of Jesus, it necessarily follows that they 
held the same belief themselves; and though the 
writings which they have left are extremely few, it 
is highly probable that some traces of their belief 
upon this subject would appear in their own works : 
at all events it becomes very important that their 
writings should be examined, that we may see whe- 
ther such traces exist or no. 

If we carry the same train of reasoning into the 
second century, we shall find a similar improbability, 
that J ustin or Ireneeus, who had seen and heard the 



INTRODUCTION. v 

contemporaries of the apostles, should not know for 
certain what was the apostolical doctrine concerning 
the nature of Christ. It may be said, that the far- 
ther we advance from the original source, the greater 
chance there is of our meeting with accidental errors 
and intentional corruptions. But this remark, though 
often made, requires some restriction and qualifica- 
tion. That a greater number of persons should be 
followers of an error which had already existed, and 
that heresies themselves should increase, was likely 
to happen as the knowledge of Christianity extended: 
but the very increase of Christianity made it more 
and more difficult that all Christians should unite in 
corrupting their common faith. As soon as the Epi- 
stles and Gospels were translated into any one lan- 
guage, an obstacle was presented to any general and 
uniform departure from the doctrine of the apostles ; 
and every new nation converted to the Christian 
faith would afford an additional security to the in- 
tegrity and unity of that faith. If we suppose that 
the great body of believers at any particular period, 
at the time of the Council of Nice for instance, held 
opinions concerning the divine and human natures 
of Christ, which were totally different from those of 
the apostles, we must suppose that the Christians of 
different countries had either kept pace with each 
other, and by mutual agreement made the same suc- 
cessive alterations in their creeds, or that at one 
particular time they all agreed by one sudden and 
simultaneous act to alter the primitive belief. The 

a 3 



vi INTRODUCTION. 

latter supposition is manifestly absurd. All corrup- 
tions, as observed above, must be gradual and pro- 
gressive : and if the apostles preached, and the early 
Christians believed, as the Unitarians tell us, that 
Jesus Christ was a mere man, the notion of his di- 
vinity could not have been introduced and finally 
established in the church without long controversy 
and continued opposition. Historians would not 
have been silent as to the progress of so great a 
change, such a total revolution in the religious be- 
lief of Christians. Volumes must have been written 
in support of either doctrine : the writers of one age 
would be found to differ from those who preceded 
them ; and since we have works remaining of all 
the three first centuries, we should find traces of all 
those successive changes which must have existed 
between the creed of the apostolical times and that 
of the Council of Nice. 

There is indeed another hypothesis, which might 
have been rejected as absurd, if advocates had not 
been found who actually advanced it. It has been 
said,, that the doctrine of the Council of Nice was 
entirely a new doctrine, which had never been main- 
tained before, but which was fabricated and pro- 
mulgated by the unanimous collusion of the Fathers 
assembled there. The existence of such a notion, 
improbable and irrational as it may appear, makes 
it desirable that an inquiry should be instituted 
similar to that, which is the object of the present 
work. Since we have writings of the three cen- 



INTRODUCTION. vii 

turies which preceded the council of Nice, the ques- 
tion whether an entirely new doctrine was invented 
at that council becomes a question of fact ; and the 
difficulty of forcing this new doctrine upon the 
whole Christian world may be illustrated by the 
supposition of an imaginary case in our own times. 
The period which had elapsed from the death of 
our Saviour, to the assembling of the Council of Nice, 
was about the same as that between the congress of 
Vienna and the reign of Henry the Seventh in Eng- 
land. Now let us suppose the ministers assembled at 
Vienna to have published a new history of Europe, 
in which it was asserted, that Henry the Seventh 
obtained the throne of England, not by his victory 
over Richard the Third, or by a kind of hereditary 
claim, but by a divine right which was universally 
recognised and never disputed in his own days. 
There is surely no greater difference between such a 
fable and the real history of Henry the Seventh's 
accession, than between the notion of Jesus being 
very and eternal God, or a mere mortal man : and 
if it would be impossible to make the people of 
England receive the one as true, it would have 
been equally impossible, in the other case, for the 
whole Christian world to be induced to alter their 
belief. 

On every account therefore it is important to as- 
certain the sentiments of the early Fathers. If the 
doctrine of the real nature of Christ was corrupted 
in the three first centuries, the writings of that pe- 

a 4 



Vlll 



INTRODUCTION. 



riod must shew the progress of the corruption. If 
no variation appears in the opinions of Christians 
during that period, but the Fathers of the three first 
centuries all deliver the same doctrine, we must 
surely be anxious to know what that doctrine was. 
For if it be true, as we have lately been told, " that 
ce the Fathers of the first three centuries were ge- 
" nerally Unitarians, and believers in the simple hu- 
" manity of Jesus Christ %" we must allow, that the 
foundations of that faith which believes Jesus Christ 
to be God, are shaken even to the ground. On the 
other hand, if it should appear that all the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers with one consent speak of Christ as 
having existed from all eternity as very God, and 
that he took our human nature into union with the 
divine, we have surely good grounds for saying, that 
there never was a time when this was not the doctrine 
of the church, and that it was the true and genuine 
doctrine which the apostles themselves preached. 

Not only should we be led by reason and experi- 
ence to appeal to the Fathers as the oldest testi- 
mony, and therefore the most valuable, but we are 
invited to the investigation by our opponents. They 
assert, as was said above, that all the early Fathers 
were Unitarians ; so that we need not be'afraidof their 
denying the fairness of our appeal, when they them- 
selves quote the same authority, and uphold it as 
favourable to their own cause. 

a Lindsey's Apology, p. 23, 24. Belsham's Calm Inquiry, 
P-255- 



INTRODUCTION. ix 

In making this appeal, the Arians and the So- 
cinians have not acted with the same constancy 
and uniformity. The Arians have invariably as- 
serted, that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
were upon their side. This was the language held 
by them at the council of Nice : and bishop Bull 
and Dr. Waterland, in the seventeenth and eight- 
eenth centuries, had to refute the same assertion, 
when advanced by their Arian opponents. But the 
Socinians have not always been equally confident, 
nor indeed consistent with themselves, in referring 
to the early Fathers. It is impossible to read the 
writings of the Socinians, from their great leader 
down to our own times, without perceiving that they 
have felt the difficulty of reconciling the Ante-Nicene 
doctrines with their own. Gilbert Clerke mentions it 
rather as a fact deserving of praise, that the Socinians 
were the only persons who candidly acknowledged 
that the early writers did not agree with themselves. 
Socinus rather insinuates, than openly asserts, that 
his own party did not profess an agreement in 
doctrine with the Ante-Nicene Fathers : and he al- 
lows that these early writers spoke of Jesus as the 
Son of God, existing before the worlds, of the sub- 
stance of the Father b , &c. It is notorious however, 
that many of his own party did make this appeal. 
Socinus himself wished to evade the difficulty by 
acknowledging no authority but that of scripture, 



b Respons. ad Vujeki. II. p. 61 7. 



X 



INTRODUCTION. 



and by attempting to identify the use which his 
opponents made of the Fathers with the Romish 
doctrine of tradition. Socinus however must have 
known that his opponents never appealed to the 
Fathers as to an authority which was to be added 
to that of scripture : they appealed to them, as the 
best interpreters of a doctrine which was preached 
not long before their own days, and the true mean- 
ing of which they were most likely to understand c . 
Later Socinian writers have been more bold than 
their leader in claiming the support of the early 
Fathers. When the controversy was so rife in the 
seventeenth century, it was confidently asserted that 
up to the time of the council of Nice the Father 
alone was believed to be God : and even those who 
advanced so far as to preach the simple humanity 
of Christ, maintained that this was the belief of the 
Christian world before the doctrines were corrupted 
by the Fathers assembled at Nice. It is well known, 
that what is called the simple humanity of Christ 
has been carried much farther by the later Socinians 
than by those who preceded them : but it is singu- 

c We may quote the authority " were written, and who must 

of Dr. Priestley upon this point : " have been much better quali- 

" It will be an unanswerable " tied to understand them, in 

" argument, apriori, against any " that respect at least, than we 

" particular doctrine being con- " can pretend to be at this 

" tained in the scriptures, that " day." Hist, of early Opin- 

" it was never understood to be ions concerning Jesus Christ 

" so by those persons for whose p. xv. 
" immediate use the scriptures 



INTRODUCTION. 



XI 



lar, that the confidence with which this party appeal 
to the Fathers has also increased ; and in the course 
of this work I shall give extracts from writings of 
our own days, in which it is plainly and expressly 
said, that all the early Christians were Unitarians. 
It is the object of the present work to inquire into 
the ground of this assertion. 

In the following pages no evidence is adduced 
from any author who wrote after the time of the 
Council of Nice. This council was held in the year 
325 ; and it is well known, that the confession of 
faith which was then drawn up, asserts unequivo- 
cally that Jesus Christ was from all eternity God of 
God, of one substance with God the Father. No 
doubt was ever entertained as to this being the 
doctrine, which was held by a large majority of the 
Fathers assembled at that council : neither can there 
be any doubt, but that this has been the professed 
doctrine of the catholic church ever since that time. 
There is therefore no necessity for our consulting 
any Post-Nicene authorities, when we wish to ascer- 
tain what were the sentiments of the primitive 
church. What we have to inquire is, whether the 
Fathers, who lived nearest to the apostolic times, 
and whose works remain, believed that Jesus Christ 
was God, or that he was merely a man. For every 
candid person will surely allow, that notwithstanding 
the positive and plain declarations of the Fathers as- 
sembled at Nice, yet if the writers who preceded 
them held a different doctrine, and did net believe 



xii 



INTRODUCTION. 



in the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, 
there would be great reason to suspect the sound- 
ness of the articles subscribed at Nice. 

With respect to the present work, it is not from 
ostentation, but in justice to myself, that I state, 
that I have carefully and attentively read through 
the works of all the Fathers of the three first cen- 
turies : or to speak more correctly, of those who 
wrote before the assembling of the Council of Nice : 
for some of the testimonies, which I adduce, are 
taken from works written at the beginning of the 
fourth century. I do not pretend to have quoted 
all the passages which bear upon the particular doc- 
trine that I am endeavouring to maintain. Those 
who believe in the divinity of Christ will naturally 
think, that any mention of Christ being born of a 
Virgin, of his becoming man, of his creating all 
things, of his having appeared to the patriarchs, &c. 
&c. is a satisfactory proof that the writers, who 
used such expressions, believed that Jesus Christ 
was God, or at least that they could not agree with 
modern Unitarians, who deny that any one of these 
expressions can properly be applied to Christ. The 
writings of the early Fathers are full of assertions 
such as these : but I have omitted hundreds, per- 
haps thousands of such instances, and have only 
selected those passages, where the meaning of the 
writer was conveyed in the strongest and plainest 
terms. 

It is perhaps useless to make protestations of 



INTRODUCTION. 



Xlll 



candor and sincerity, or to say, that I have only 
been guided by a love of truth. But if in any in- 
stance a passage is translated unfairly, or an infer- 
ence deduced from it which it will not bear, the 
reader is furnished with the means of detecting and 
exposing the error. The quotations are all given 
in English, as literally as the idiom of our language 
will permit, perhaps more literally than some per- 
sons would have wished : and at the bottom of the 
page the passage will be found in its original lan- 
guage. In laying the quotations before the reader, 
I have had two things principally in view : that he 
should be in possession of so much of the context 
as will make the passage intelligible : and that he 
should be able to see, whether the words which 
bear upon the controverted point are translated 
fairly. It will therefore often be found, that the 
passage is given more at length in the translation, 
than it is in the original : sometimes only a few 
words are of importance for deciding the doctrine, 
when several sentences are necessary for under- 
standing the context. In those cases I have trans- 
cribed only so much of the original passage as seems 
to support the doctrine of Christ's divinity. 

Some remarks are necessarily interspersed, both 
to make the passage intelligible to the reader, when 
he has not the original work to consult, and to point 
out the conclusion, which appears to follow natu- 
rally and legitimately from the quotation : but I 
state expressly, that I do not profess to notice all 



xiv INTRODUCTION. 

the different interpretations, which have been given 
to any passage, nor to answer the objections which 
have been founded upon other expressions of the 
same author. There is not much reading necessary 
to know that we may find passages in the Fathers 
and in the New Testament, which speak of Christ 
as having a human nature, and being inferior to his 
Father. But that person must have little know- 
ledge and little judgment, who produces such pas- 
sages as these in proof of the Unitarian doctrines. 
The catholic church has always held that Christ had 
a real human nature, and that as a Son, begotten by 
God, he was so far inferior to the Father : but if the 
church which believes this, believes also that Jesus 
Christ is God, it is surely most unfair to argue, that 
those passages which prove the humanity of Christ, 
overturn the doctrines of the catholic church. Those 
doctrines can only be overturned, when it is proved, 
that the Fathers held notions concerning the human 
nature of Christ, which are incompatible with what 
the church believes of his divine nature. It is not 
therefore my intention to examine those passages 
which Unitarian writers have advanced, as main- 
taining their own hypothesis, nor to point out the 
false and unfair conclusions which they have drawn 
from others. If it be proved satisfactorily, that the 
Fathers believed in the eternity and consubstantial 
divinity of the Son, the Unitarian notion of his mere 
humanity is necessarily overthrown. For there is 
this great difference between the creed of the Unita- 



INTRODUCTION. 



xv 



rians and that of the catholic church, so far as they 
are affected by the testimonies of the Fathers : The 
divinity of Christ, according to the catholic sense of 
the doctrine, is not disproved by passages which 
support his human nature ; but the simple humanity 
of Christ is altogether overthrown by passages which 
assert his divinity. 

The judgment of the Ante-Nicene Fathers has 
often been appealed to, and testimonies from their 
writings have often been alleged, in support of the 
divinity of Christ. The Defence of the Nicene Faith 
by Bishop Bull is a work, which must ever stand 
preeminent in this department of theological learn- 
ing, and which would almost discourage any other 
person from presuming to combat in the same field. 
But that great man seems to have had too vast a 
mind, and too much overflowing with polemical 
learning, to make his book a favourite study with 
the general reader. The quotations, which he brings 
from the Ante-Nicene Fathers in this and his other 
works, will most of them be found in the following 
pages. 

The great work of Le Nourry d , beside being a 
storehouse of critical information concerning the 
works of the Fathers, contains many quotations 
from them in proof of the divinity of Christ. 

Dr. Waterland has made great use of the early 
Fathers in many of his writings, and the unfounded 

d Apparatus ad Bibliothecam Maximam Veterum Patrum, &c. 
Paris. 1703. 



XVI 



INTRODUCTION. 



assertions of Arians and Socinians are exposed by 
copious references to the original works : but there 
is no one treatise of Dr. W. in which the testimonies 
of the Fathers are advanced in any systematic or 
regular order. In the course of the following pages, 
I have occasion frequently to notice how largely I 
am indebted to him for his references and quota- 
tions. 

The work most nearly resembling the present is 
that written by Burgh, and entitled, An Inquiry 
into the Belief of the Christians of the first three 
Centuries respecting the one Godhead of the Fa- 
ther > Son, and Holy Ghost. It was the object of 
this gentleman to present a series of testimonies 
from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, arranged in chrono- 
logical order : and, when we consider that he was a 
layman who had not long directed his studies to 
that line of reading, we must agree that the praise, 
which was bestowed upon his book, was not un- 
merited. But he has certainly not noticed all the 
passages which might be adduced, and from not 
having used the best editions, he has sometimes 
made assertions, which are not borne out by the 
original passage. 

After having studied the Fathers themselves, I 
consulted the above and other works, that I might 
correct the errors and omissions which I had made. 
The quotations are brought forward in chronological 
order, that the reader may be able to judge whether 
the later Fathers had departed in any way from the 



INTRODUCTION. xvii 

opinions of those who lived nearer to the apostolical 
times. A short account is prefixed concerning the 
life of each of the Fathers ; for which I am chiefly 
indebted to the elaborate work of Dr. Lardner ; and 
where chronologists differ, I have generally followed 
that writer. 

At the end of this Introduction there will be 
found a list of the editions, which are referred to ; 
and in each case it was intended to select the 
best. 



This second edition will not be found to differ in 
any material points from the first, except that it has 
received some corrections and several additions, 
which a continued perusal of the later Fathers and 
of other writers has enabled me to make. The ar- 
rangement has in no instance been altered, and the 
Numbers prefixed to each quotation remain the 
same, that references may be made without any dif- 
ference to either edition. The new matter is inter- 
spersed in various places throughout the work, and 
occupies on the whole about forty pages. 



b 



LIST OF EDITIONS 

REFERRED TO IN THIS WORK. 



Barnabas 
ClemensRom. 
Hermas 
Ignatius 
Justin Martyr 
Tatianus 
Athenagoras 

Melito 



;} 



Ireneeus 

Clemens Alex. 
Tertullianus 
Minucius Felix 
Hippolytus 

Origenes 

Cyprianus 
Novatianus 

Dionysius Alex. 

Dionysius Rom. 

Concil. Antioch. 
Archelaus 
Theonas 
Lucianns 

Methodius 

Arnobius 
Petrus Alex. 
Lactantius 



A.D. 

72. 

96. 

100. 

107. 

150. 

165. 
170. 

i75- 

185. 

194. 
200. 
210. 
220. 

240. 

250. 
257- 
260. 

260. 

269. 
278. 
290. 
300. 

3°5- 

306. 
306. 
310. 



Patres Apostolici Cotelerii. Amste- 
laedami. 2 vol. fol. 1724. 



Editio Benedictina. Hagse Comitum 
fol. 1742. 



r Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. I. p. 105,") 
1 &c. 4 vol. 8°. Oxonii. 1814-1818. J 
r Editio Benedictina a , Massuet. Paris. ") 
t fol. 17 10. J 

Potter. Oxonii. fol. 17 15. 

Priorii. Paris, fol. 1675. 

Variorum. Lugduni Bat. 8°. 1672. 

Fabricii. Hamb. 2 vol. fol. 1716, 18. 
rEd. Benedict. Delarue. 4 vol. fol. \ 
I Paris. I733-I759- J 

Ed. Benedict, fol. Paris. 1726. 

Ad finem operum Tertull. v. supra 
f Simonis de Magistris. fol. Romse 
I 1796^ 

{Apud Athanas. 1. c. et Routh. Rel. 
Sacr. III. p. 176. 
Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. II. p. 463. 
Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. IV. p. 119 
Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. III. p. 307 
Apud Socratem II. 10. 
r Biblioth. Graec. Patr. Combefisii 
1 Paris. 1672. 
4 0 . Lugd. Bat. 1651. 
Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. III. p. 319 
2 vol. 4°. Paris. 1748. 



a This edition was reprinted at Y 7 e- them is extremely doubtful, 

nice in 1734 with some fragments disco- b The date in the title-page of this edi- 

vered at. Turin by Pfaffius, and published tion is printed by mistake CI3I03XCVI. 
by him in 1715. But the genuineness of 



TESTIMONIES 

OF 

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 

TO 

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 



Barnabas, A.D. 72. 

W E learn from the Acts of the Apostles, iv. 36. 
that Barnabas was a Levite of the country of Cy- 
prus, and that he travelled often in company with 
St. Paul, and afterwards by himself. There is 
nothing certain known as to the time or manner of 
his death. Whether the Epistle, which bears his 
name, was really written by him, has been disputed 
among the learned. Pearson, Cave, Du Pin, Ham- 
mond, Vossius, Bull, Wake, and Lardner, were in- 
clined to think it genuine : Coteler, Tillemont, and 
Jortin doubted about it ; and Basnage pronounced 
it spurious. Horsley gives it as his own opinion, 
that " an inspired apostle could not be the writer of 
" such a book." But though we may reject the 
Epistle, as not being the work of Barnabas, it seems 
impossible to deny that it was written at an early 
period. It is quoted in several places by Clement 
of Alexandria, who himself wrote at the end of the 
second century. He expressly ascribes it to " the 
" apostle Barnabas," and his quotations from it are 

B 



BARNABAS, A. D. 72. 



all to be found in the work which has come down 
to us. It must therefore have been written before 
the end of the second century. Dr. Priestley him- 
self quoted it among the writings of the apostolic 
fathers : and though I place it as the earliest work, 
from which this series of testimonies is taken, I do 
not venture to decide the question, whether Barna- 
bas was the real author or no. If he was not, the 
Epistle should probably be ranked after those of 
Clement and Ignatius ; and the evidence adduced 
from it belongs to the second century, not to the 
first. Lardner, who believed it to be genuine, thought 
that it was written about the year 71 or 72. The 
whole of the Epistle has not come down to us in 
Greek, the four first chapters and part of the fifth 
being lost : but there is an old Latin translation, 
which has preserved the whole of it. 

1. Bar nab m Epistola, c. 5. p. 60. 

iS and what is more, the Lord endured to 

" suffer for our souls, though he is the Lord of the 
" world : to whom God said before the constitution 
" of the world, Let us make man a ." 

It appears therefore, that the notion of Christ 
being one of the persons to whom God said, Let us 
make man, is as old as the time in which this 
Epistle was written : and in c. 6. p. 19. the words 
of Genesis are quoted as spoken by the Father to 
the Son. The passage also asserts expressly the 
preexistence of Christ, and the atonement made by 

a Et ad hoc Dominus susti- bishop Buli proposed reading 

nuit pati pro anima nostra, cum Deus ante, &c. which seems a 

sit orbis terrarum Dominus ; cui good conjecture. The sense is 

dixit die ante constitutionem see- the same in either reading, and 

culi, Faciamus, &c. Instead of if Deus is not in the text, it 

die ante constitutionem sceculi, must be supplied. 



BARNABAS, A. D. 72. 



3 



his sufferings ; both of which doctrines have been 
denied by modern Unitarians. 

This being the first passage in which the words 
of Gen. i. 26. are quoted, I may mention, that the 
Arians perfectly agreed with the orthodox party in 
their interpretation of them. Thus in the Creed 
which was drawn up by the Arians at the council 
of Sirmium, A. D. 351. we find this clause; "If 
" any one say that the Father did not speak the 
" words, Let us make man, to his Son, but that he 
" spoke them to himself, let him be anathema b ." 

2. Barnahce Epistola, c. 5. p. 16. 

The following passage also proves the preexist- 
ence of Christy and that he created the world. " For 
" if he had not come in flesh, how could we men 
" have been saved, when we looked at him ? for 
" when men look at the sun, the work of his hands, 
" which will cease to exist, they have not power to 
" face its rays c ." It is to be observed that his hands 
can only mean the hands of Christ : it was Christ 
therefore who created the sun. Compare Gen. i. 16- 
And GOD made two great lights, &c. Athanasius 
says expressly, that Christ is the Maker and Lord of 
the sun d . 

3. Barnabce Epistola, c. 6. p. 19. 

The following passage evidently implies the divi- 
nity of Christ, and his union with the Father, inas- 
much as it refers to him those words which Ezekiel 

b Ei' Tt? to, TloirjcrufAtv avBpanov, rov ; ot; rov fxeXXovra jUJjj elvat vjXiov, 

yj)] rov marepa npoq rov vlov Xtyeiv, kpyov %€tpav avrov v'Kap%ovra /3Xe- 

aXX' avrov upoq iavrov Xeyoi rov itovnc, ovk lo-yjuovartv e*s a,Kr7vaq avrov 

Seov tlprjKevai, avdQepa to~rw. Ath. avroc})6aX[M)<Tai. 
de Synodis, vol. I. p. 743. d '0 rfkiov IIonjT^ tea] Kvpio$. De 

c Et ydp [M> yXOev iv crapKi, izac, Incarn. I 7. vol.1, p. 62. 
av £o-a$vi[jt.€v avBpuitoi fiXeirovrei; av~ 

B 2 



4 CLEMENS ROMANUS, A. D. 96. 



(xi. 19- and xxxvi. 26.) attributes to God the Fa- 
ther : " Lo ! saith the Lord, / will take away from 
" them, i. e. from those whom the Spirit of the Lord 
" foresaw, their stony hearts, and will give them 
" hearts of flesh : because He was about to be ma- 
" nifested in the flesh, and to dwell among us : for 
" the dwelling-place of our heart, my brethren, is a 
" holy temple to the Lord e ." Thus he who was 
manifested in the flesh was the person who spoke 
those words in Ezekiel ; and we learn from xi. 17. 
that this was the Lord God. 

4. Bar nab ce Epistola, c. 7. p. 20. 
" If then the Son of God, being Lord, and who is 
" to judge quick and dead, suffered, that his stripes 
" might give us life, we will believe that the Son of 
" God was incapable of suffering, except for our 
" sakes f ." If Christ had been a mere man, it would 
be absurd to say, that he was incapable of suffer- 
ing : such an incapability could not be predicated of 
any human being whatever. See Acts ii. 24. 

Clemens Romanus, A.D. 96. 
Clement is mentioned by St. Paul (Phil. iv. 3.) 
as one of his fellow -labourers, whose names are in 
the book of life. He was undoubtedly bishop of 
Rome ; but there are difficulties in ascertaining the 
order and date of his succession. Some writers place 
him immediately after St. Peter : but Irenaeus §, who 
is the oldest authority, names as the three first bi- 
shops, Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Many dates 



e 'iSot, Xeyei Kvptoq, efeXS rov- 
tuv k. t. X*— — or* e^eXXey ev o-ap/u 
(pctvepovvBai, kou ev vjfjuv KaroiKeiv. 

f E* ovv 6 vib$ tov Seov, av Kv- 
pioq, kou /xeXXwv Kplvtiv X i mra.c t kou 



veKpovq, enaQev, I'va rj TtXvjyrj avrov 
^ucnoirivri rjtxaq, TciaTevaopev, on 6 
vlo<; tov Seov ovk ffivvccTQ itaOeTv, 

sin. 3, 3- p. 176. 



CLEMENS ROMANUS, A. D. 96. 



5 



have been assigned for the beginning of his bishopric : 
some have put it as early as A. D. 61, others as late 
as 93 ; and while some think that he sate till the 
end of the first century, others contend that he re- 
signed his see in 77. This variety of opinions, as to 
the time of his being bishop, necessarily leads to un- 
certainty as to the date of his Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians. Archbishop Wake thought that it was 
written between the years 64 and 70: but those 
who think that he was not bishop till 93, must also 
conceive that the Epistle was not written till after 
that time. Lardner ascribes it to the year 96 ; and 
I have adopted that date in preference to an earlier 
one, that I might not seem to give to any of these 
testimonies a greater antiquity, than what the most 
scrupulous critic would be obliged to allow. 

The Epistle was written in the name of the 
church of Rome to the church of Corinth, on the oc- 
casion of some jealousies and dissensions among the 
Corinthian brethren : and the following testimony 
to the writer of it is particularly valuable, as com- 
ing from Irenaeus, who had himself conversed with 
persons who had seen the apostles. " After Anen- 
" cletus, Clement succeeded to the bishopric, who 
" had seen the apostles, and laboured with them ; and 
" who had the preaching of the apostles still sound- 
" ing in his ears, and their teaching before his eyes : 
" nor was he the only one ; for many were still re- 
" maining, who had been taught by the apostles. No 
" small dissension having arisen among the brethren 
" at Corinth in the time of Clemens, the church at 
" Rome sent a most seasonable letter to the Corin- 
" thians, exhorting them to peace, and renewing 
" their faith, and reminding them of the doctrine 

B 3 



6 



CLEMENS ROMANUS, A. D. 96. 



" which it had lately received from the apostles h ." 
There seems now to be no doubt whatever concern- 
ing the authenticity of the Epistle. It was not 
known to exist entire till the year 1628, when a 
copy of it was sent by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, 
and afterwards of Constantinople, as a present to 
Charles the First \ from which manuscript it was 
printed by Patrick Young in 1633. 

There is also a second Epistle ascribed to Clement : 
but since many persons have pronounced it to be 
spurious, I give no quotations from it, though it 
contains some express evidence of the divinity of 
Christ. There seems no reason to think that Cle- 
ment suffered martyrdom. 

Dr. Whitby, in his " Reply/' to Dr. Waterland \ 
asserts of Clement of Rome, that "he constantly 
" separates Jesus Christ from that God whom he 
" styles the true and only God, but never once calls 
" him God." I should wish the reader to bear this 
observation in mind, and to pronounce upon the 
truth of it after he has read the following quotations 
from the Epistle. 

5. dementis l a . Epistola, c. 2. p. 147-8. 

The construction of Clement's words in the se- 
cond chapter obliges us to apply the term God to 
Jesus Christ, who suffered upon the cross. The 
first sentence of the chapter is this : " Ye have all 
" been humble-minded, arrogant in nothing, sub- 

h Iren. III. 3, 3. p. 176. ten. See the account in the 

' This invaluable present con- first translation of this Epistle 

sisted of the Alexandrian ma- made by William Burton in 

nuscript of the Old and New 1647. 

Testament, now in the British k Page 11. See Waterland's 

Museum, at the end of which Works, vol. III. p. 225. 
the Epistle of Clement is writ- 



CLEMENS ROMANUS, A.D. 96. 



7 



" jected rather than subjecting, giving rather than 
" receiving, being satisfied with the supplies sent 
" from God : and paying careful attention to His 
" words, ye have fixed them deeply in your minds, 
" and His sufferings were before your eyes 1 ." The 
person, whose words and sufferings had made such 
an impression upon them, is said to be God : and it 
is equally evident that the sufferings were those of 
Jesus Christ, who was therefore considered by Cle- 
ment to be God. See N°. 39. and 44. 

6. dementis l a . Epistola, c. 16. p. 156. 
The following passage may remind us of St. Paul's 
words in Phil. ii. 6, 7. " For Christ belongs to the 
" humble-minded, who do not exalt themselves over 
" his flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the sceptre of 
" the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of 
" splendour or of pride, although he might have 
" done so, but humble," &c. m This passage strongly 
confirms the usual interpretation of Phil. ii. 7. that 
the first humiliation of Christ consisted in his di- 
vesting himself of his divine nature and assuming 
the human. Clement expressly says, that Christ 
might have come in pomp and splendour, which 
power he could not have had, if he were a mere 
man, and had no existence prior to his human birth. 
Neither is it probable that Clement would have 

1 Hctvreq re irairewocppoveire, aovq, ovk vjX0€V ev Kopica aXatyvetaq, 

hev a'AaZ ) QV€v6iA.evoi ro7q etpobloiq ovtit iirepycpocvicct;, Kaiitep dvvccue- 

rov ®€0v ocfKOVfJievoii kcu npocreyjivrec, voq' dXXa, raneivo<ppov£v. Jerom 

rovq Xoyovq avrov inipeXaq iarepvi- seems to have read Ka'mep icdvra 

(rpevoi yre ro7q o-nXdyxvoiq, KoCi ra Ivvdpevoq, although he had power 

itaQrjpara avrov \v irpo ocpdaX^av to do all things, or was omnipo- 

v[auv. tent : for he translates it cum 

m To a-K^Ttrpov rv\q (/.eyaXooo-vvrji; posset omnia. (In Esaiam lii.) 

rov Seov, 6 Kvptoq ^\mov Xpicrroq 'lvj- 

B 4 



8 



CLEMENS ROMANUS, A. D. 96. 



called a mere man the sceptre of the majesty of 
God, 

The passage may remind us of similar expressions 
in the fathers : e. g. Justin Martyr n : " God sent 
" him to them : and was it, as we might suppose of 
" a man in regal power, to awe and to confound ? 
<e by no means : but in gentleness and meekness." 
Irenaeus ° ; " For he might have come to us in his 
" own incorruptible glory, but we could not have 
" borne the greatness of his glory :" which words 
may remind us of the passage already quoted from 
Barnabas, at p. 3. N°. 2. and of a still stronger pas- 
sage in Origen p : " Who [the Word] being in the 

" beginning with God became flesh, that he 

" might be comprehended by those who were not 
" able to look at him, in that he was the Word, and 
" was with God, and was God." And in another 
place % " Coming down once to that which was not 
" able to look at the dazzling brightness of his divi- 
" nity, he became in a manner flesh." Tertullian 
says r , " God could not have entered into conversa- 
" tion with men, unless he had assumed human feel- 
" ings and affections, by which he could temper the 
" greatness of his majesty, which would have been 
" intolerable to human weakness, with a humility 
<c which might be unworthy of Him, but necessary 
" for man." See also Arnobius, N°. 344. It will 
perhaps be thought, that these later writers did not 
carry the doctrine of Christ's divinity at all higher 

n Epistola ad Diognetum. 7. ( i lb. IV. 15. p. 511. 
p. 237. r Adv. Marcion II. 27. p. 

0 IV. 38, 1. p. 284. 395. 
p Cont. Cels. VI. 68. p. 684. 



CLEMENS ROMANUS, A. D. 96. 9 



than it was maintained by Barnabas and Clement in 
the first century : to which I may add, that the fact 
of it having been optional with Christ to appear in 
the human or a superior nature, is as expressly 
maintained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. ii. 16, 
17, 18. as in the passages above quoted from the fa- 
thers. St. Paul certainly believed that Christ as- 
sumed the human nature : vid. Heb. iv. 15 : v. 2. 
Phil. ii. 7. Rom. viii. 3. 

7. dementis l a . Epistola, c. 22. p. 161. 

The preexistence of Christ, and his identity with 
the Jehovah of the Old Testament, is implied in the 
manner in which Clement quotes Psalm xxxiv. 11. 
Having given exhortations to moral conduct in the 
different relations of life, he says, " But it is faith in 
" Christ which confirmeth all these things : for he 
" himself thus calleth us by the Holy Ghost, Come 
" ye children," &c. s He then quotes the Psalm 
from the 11th to the 19th verse. 

It might perhaps be said, that the words in this 
Psalm were spoken by David, and not by God. This 
remark however does not affect the argument. Cle- 
ment considered that they were spoken by God : 
and since he says in this place that they were 
spoken by Christ, it is evident that in the opinion of 
Clement it was indifferent whether he referred them 
to Jehovah or to Christ. It may be mentioned that 
Clement of Alexandria f makes a large extract from 
this part of the Epistle, and he quotes the passage 
before us thus : " But it is faith in Christ which 
" confirmeth all these things. Come ye children, 

s TavTcc Se itdvra (3e(3aioi y iv KaXe7rai y](^aq, Aevre, k. t. A. 
Xpurry Tctartt;. Ka) yap avroq ha x Strom. IV. 16, p. 6l2. 
tov TrvevfAaroi; rov dyiov ovraq npo<7- 



10 CLEMENS ROMANUS, A. D. 96. 



" saith the Lord, hearken unto me" &c. The ex- 
tract is not given literally: but it is plain that 
Clement of Alexandria, as well as his namesake of 
Rome, made God the speaker of the words in Psalm 
xxxiv. ; and we have an equal testimony to the 
divinity of Christ, whether we refer the term Lord, 
which is used by Clement of Alexandria, to Jehovah 
or to Christ. If he meant Jehovah, he clearly under- 
stood Christ to be one with Jehovah : because the 
passage before him, which he was quoting from 
Clement of Rome, attributes the words to Christ. 
If he meant Christ by the word Lord, he held the 
preexistence of Christ, and made him the source of 
inspiration to the Psalmist. 

8. dementis l a . Epistola, c. 32. p. 166. 
That Christ had another nature beside the hu- 
man, is also clearly implied by the expression, that 
" Christ came of Abraham according to the flesh u ." 
It is needless to adduce similar passages from St. 
Paul's Epistles, such as Rom. i. 3. ix. 5. &c. &c. in 
all of which, the words according to the flesh must 
be taken to imply a descent from some other source 
which is not carnal. 

9. dementis l a . Epistola, c. 36. p. 168. 
We may observe also, that Clement says of Christ 

— " Who being the brightness of His majesty is so 
" much higher than the angels, as he hath by in- 
" heritance obtained a more excellent name x :" which 
words are evidently taken from Heb. i. 3, 4. ; and 
confirm the remark of Eusebius y, that the style and 

u 'Ef avTOv 6 Kvpioq ^Irjtrovq to ayyeXvv, t<rw dia>(popaT€pov ovo[/.a K€- 
KCLTot a-ccpKct. KkfipavofAfiKev. 

x & Oq aitavy a<7 [/.a tSjs (/.tya- ? H. E. III. 38. 



CLEMENS ROMANUS, A.D. 96. 11 



expression of the two Epistles closely resemble each 
other, so that some persons had imagined that Cle- 
ment translated the Epistle to the Hebrews into 
Greek, it having been originally written by St. Paul 
in Hebrew. Whether the words, " being the bright- 
" ness of His majesty," are equivalent to an assertion 
of the divinity of Christ, has been often discussed by 
the commentators upon the Epistle to the Hebrews : 
but we cannot fail to observe, that Clement also 
agrees with that Epistle in saying, that Christ was 
higher than the angels : so that we may collect from 
all these passages, that Christ had an existence prior 
to his human birth, that it was one of celestial 
splendour, that he was higher than angels : and if 
all this did not amount to a declaration of his divi- 
nity, we have seen that Clement actually calls him 
God. 

Eusebius, or rather an older writer quoted by him, 
in his Ecclesiastical History z , says that Justin, Mil- 
tiades, Tatian, and Clement, all called Christ God. 
Dr. Routh, in his Reliquiae Sacrae % is inclined to 
understand this of Clement of Rome rather than of 
Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius certainly says, 
that the above writers were older than the time of 
Victor: and, as Dr. Routh justly observes, Clement 
of Alexandria could not well be called older than 
the time of Victor, who was chosen to the see of 
Rome, A. D. 185. But the order, in which the 
names are given, seems rather to point out Clement 
of Alexandria. Had his namesake of Rome been 
intended, he should have been placed first, as being 
much the most ancient : and though Clement of 



z V. 28. 



a II. p. 2 I . 



12 



HERMAS, A.D.100. 



Alexandria survived Victor, yet he most probably 
published his earlier works before the year in which 
Victor succeeded Eleutherus in the bishopric of 
Rome. 

Hermas, A. D. 100. 
The book ascribed to Hernias, entitled the Shep- 
herd, has been rejected by most critics as a spurious 
work. But we may say of it, as we did of the 
Epistle of Barnabas, that though it may not have 
been really written by Hermas, yet it must have 
been written in the second century. We have in 
fact older testimony in favour of the Shepherd of 
Hermas than of the Epistle of Barnabas ; for it is 
quoted by Irenaeus, who wrote before Clement of 
Alexandria. The latter writer cites several passages 
from this work, ascribing it by name to Hermas : so 
that we cannot well suppose it to have been written 
later than the middle of the second century. If it 
was really composed by the person whose name it 
bears, it was probably written at the end of the first 
century, and this is the date which Lardner assigns 
to it. The learned have also disputed, whether the 
supposed author of this book was the Hermas men- 
tioned by St. Paul, Rom. xvi. 14. Origen b thought 
that he was. Mosheim adopts the opinion of Mura- 
tori, that the Shepherd was written in the second 
century by Hermas, who was brother to Pius bishop 
of Rome c . 

" The Shepherd of Hermas was written in Greek : 

b In Rom. 1. X. vol. IV. p. Matth. vol. III. p. 872. 

683. Among the testimonies c Eccles. Hist. vol. I. p. 1 13. 

which Coteler has quoted from Mosheim refers to Muratori 

Origen, in favour of Hermas, he Antiq. Italic, medii sevi, torn. 3. 

has omitted one which may be diss. 43. p. 853. 
found in his Commentary upon 



HERMAS, A.D.100. 



13 



" but we have now only an ancient Latin version, 
" beside some fragments of the Greek preserved in 
" the ancient Greek authors who have quoted him. 
" It consists of three books. In the first are four 
" Visions ; in the second, twelve Commands ; in the 
" third, ten Similitudes d ." The language of this 
book is so mystical and figurative, that I shall only 
bring one testimony from it, the literal meaning of 
which it seems impossible to misunderstand. 
10. Hermce Pastor, 1. III. Simil. 9- 12. p. 118. 
" The Son of God is more ancient than any cre- 
" ated thing, so that he was present in counsel with 
" his Father at the creation e ." This passage not 
only maintains the preexistence of Christ, but assigns 
to him an uncreated nature : for had he been him- 
self created, he would not have been older than all 
creation, but the oldest created thing: and the ex- 
pression would have been similar to what is said of 
the church in this same work, that " it was created 
" the first of all things f ." The passage may remind 
us of that expression of St. Paul, in which he calls 
Christ 7rpcQTOTOKo$ 7rddYjg Kriaeccg, the first-born, or first- 
begotten of every creature. Col. i. 15. Had St. Paul 
said irpooTog, the first, it might have been implied that 
Christ was himself created : but he uses a word 
which, while it signifies the nature of the relation 
between the Son and the Father, puts the Son above 
every creature, not only in degree, but in kind : he 
was begotten before any thing was created. Thus 
J ustin Martyr expressly calls him " the first-begot- 

d Lardner, vol. II. p. 52. condendam creaturam. 

e Filius quidem Dei omni f Omnium prima creata est. 

creatura antiquior est, ita ut in I. Vis. 2. §. ult. p. 78. 
consilio Patri suo adfuerit ad 



14 



IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



" ten of God, and before all created things & :" and 
again, " he was begotten of the Father, and was 
" with the Father before any thing was created h ." 
Origen makes God say of the Son, " I have begotten 
<c thee before every reasonable creature { f and in 
another place he says, " the image of the invisible 
" God, begotten before every creature, is incapable of 
" death k ;" a position which would not be true, if Christ 
were created 1 . The Arians do not appear at first to 
have quoted this text, when they wished to prove 
that Christ was a creature, /ctta-pa : for Eusebius, 
who denied this, notices all the passages of scripture 
which might seem to support the doctrine, but takes 
no notice of this m . It seems, however, that they 
afterwards quoted the text in support of their own 
doctrine 11 . See Waterland's Works, vol. 3. p. 35. 

Ignatius, A. D. 107. 
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch. Theodoret ° says 
that he was appointed by St. Peter, and the Apo- 



§ YlpCOTQTOKOV TOV €)€0U, KCU Ttpo 

Tcdvrav twv KTio-fAaTav. Dial. Cum 
Tryph. ioo. p. 195. 

h TOVTO TO TW OVTI OCTTO TOV TtCt- 

rpoq npofiXyQeii yevvrj^a npo irdvruv 

TaV 'KOlYllAO.TWV <TVVf\V T% HOT pi. 

Dial, cum Tryph. 62. p. 159. 

5 Upo ndcrqq XoyiKrjq (pvaecoq lykv- 
vr\<ra. ere. In Psalm, ex. 3. vol. 

II. p. 787. 

k 'AvenfteKToq ydp r\ zIkoov tov 
@eov tov aopxTOv itporoTOKoq itd&yfq 

KTta-ecoq Qa.vd.Tov. In Joan. torn. 
XXVIII. 14. vol. IV. p. 392. 

1 Athanasius marks this dis- 
tinction very plainly when he 
says, speaking of the text, Col. 



I. 16, 17. kv avTa ixTfodv) roc 

navra, kou avToq iuTi itpo TtdvTm 

ov Keyei oti irpo itdvTuv inTiaOv), 
aW oti upo iruvTav 1<ttI' to yovv 
eKTitrBai, in) iravTuv KtiTai' to Se, 
etrrt itpo tidvToov, (Aovcp t5> via dp- 
poTTti. Expos. Fid. 2. vol. I. p. 
100- 1. Epiphanius has also 
the same sentiment : — //.y/ <rw- 

•/\\K\Ktvoq T7j KTicrei, dXkd itpo Kriaeccq 
yeyevyyjj^hoq. ov yap elite, npono- 
KTio-Toq, aXhd icpccToroKoq. Hser. 

LXXVIII. 17. vol. I. p. 1049. 

m Socrates, II. 2T. p. 107. 

n Athanas. Orat. II. cont. 
Arian. 63. p. 530-1. 

0 Dial. I. 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



15- 



stolical Constitutions p say that it was by St. Paul. 
However this may have been, it seems certain that 
he succeeded Euodius in the see of Antioch, and 
probably about the year 69 or 70 : according to 
which date he might easily have conversed with the 
apostles, as Chrysostom expressly says that he did ^. 
Some writers have repeated the foolish story of 
his having been the child whom our Saviour took in 
his arms, Matt, xviii. 2. and of his receiving the 
name of Theophorus from this circumstance. That 
he had this title is true, but Pearson r has unan- 
swerably proved that the story is a fiction. 

He was sent from Antioch to Rome, to be exposed 
to wild beasts in the amphitheatre : and if we could 
ascertain the precise year of his martyrdom, we 
should also fix the date of his Epistles ; for they 
were all written while he was on his journey to 
Rome. Some writers have assigned this event to 
the year 107 s : while others have thought that it 
did not take place till 11 6*. His Epistles are seven 
in number, addressed to the churches of Ephesus, 
Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, 
and to his fellow-martyr Polycarp. The genuine- 
ness of these Epistles has been called in question ; 
but if ever there was a work, which from exhaust- 
ing the subject and compelling conviction might be 
pronounced unanswerable and unanswered, it is the 
Vindication of these Epistles by bishop Pearson u . 
The same opinion has been entertained by I. Vossius, 

p VII. 46. Lardner. 

1 Tom. I. Horn. 42. in Ignat. 1 Pearson, Lloyd, Pagi, Le 

p. 562. Clerc, Fabricius. 

r Vindic. Ignat. pars II. 12. u Vindiciae Epistolarum S. 

(p. 411. ed. Coteler.) Ignatii, 1672. 

s Du Pin, Tillemont, Cave, 



16 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



Usher, Hammond, Petavius, Grotius, Bull, Cave, 
Wake, Cotelerius, Grabe, Du Pin, Tillemont, Le 
Clerc, Mosheim, Lardner, Horsley, &c. &c. These 
are great names, the authority of which ean hardly 
be set aside by that of Salmasius, Blondel, and Dal- 
lseus, who have rejected the Epistles, although we 
may add Dr. Priestley to the number, who has told 
us that " the genuineness of them is generally given 
<c up by the learned." This presumptuous falsehood 
is chastised, as it deserved, by Horsley x , to whom 
the reader is referred for an account of the larger or 
interpolated edition of Ignatius, which was published 
for the first time in 1557? and of the shorter or 
genuine edition, which was published by I. Vossius 
in 1646. It may be added, that though Dr. Priestley 
made this unwarrantable assertion, he allowed that 
the proofs of our Lord's divinity which Horsley ad- 
duced from Ignatius, were true according to our 
present copies. 
11. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 1. vol. II. p. 11. 
The first Epistle of Ignatius is addressed to the 
Ephesians, and the title of it contains the following 
words : " Ignatius — to the church at Ephesus — 
" which was preordained before the worlds — accord- 
" ing to the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ 
" our God y" The same expression of " Jesus 
" Christ our God" occurs in the title of the Epistle 
of Ignatius to the Romans, p. 25. 

The Epistle begins thus : " I approve in God of 
" the much beloved name which ye have justly ob- 
" tained, by faith and love in Jesus Christ our Sa- 
" viour. Being imitators of God, having animated 

x Works, IV. p. 133. 

y ev OeXyj/ActTi rov ivaTpo$, Kai *\f\<T<X) Xpicrrov tov ®eov ypav. 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



17 



" yourselves by the blood of God, ye have performed 
" perfectly the congenial work z ." In this passage 
the term blood obliges us to refer the annexed term 
God to Jesus Christ, who shed his blood for us. 
The blood of God is certainly a very strong expres- 
sion : but it was not unusual with the Fathers ; and 
seems to afford an additional confirmation of the 
received reading in Acts xx. 28. feed the church 
of God, which He hath purchased with His own 
blood. 

Instead of Seov, God, in Acts xx. 28. some MSS. 
and other authorities read KvpUv, Lord, and Kvpfov 
Kal Seov, Lord and God : for the reading €kk\y]g-{ocv 
Xpia-Tov, church of Christ, being supported by no 
Greek MS. whatever, does not deserve to be con- 
sidered. Of the two other readings, the only one 
which requires us to weigh the evidence is that of 
Kvptov, Lord: for divinity will be equally attributed 
to Christ, whether St. Paul called him God, or Lord 
and God. 

Of the two readings, God and Lord, it may be 
observed, that the Vatican MS. which is perhaps of 
the highest authority and antiquity of all, has Seov, 
God. The MS. was examined in this passage for 
the London edition of Griesbach's New Testament 
published in 1818, and is found to contain this read- 
ing a ; of which the Unitarian translators appear not 

z ' Aito^dfAevoi; h ®eZ to ttoXv- without any verb to complete 

ayccTryTov aov ovopa o K€KTV]<T6e cpvaei the sense. But it may be read 

SiK-a/a, Kara tv'kttiv Ka) aydnyv Iv in conjunction with the title, 

'Itjo-oi/ Xpia-Toj t£ trarrjpi jWt- ''Yyvdrvioc, — tSj lKK\t\<Jia, — y/xlptiv, 

jt>ojTat ovreq Geov, avaX ) oo'Kvp^cravT€i; am^i^d^evoq k. r. X. I have put 

iv aiu.ari Seov, to <rvyyeviKov epyov a Stop after corrupt quay, which 

reXelcoq cvKfipTla-aTe. Commenta- seems to make the construction 

tors have observed that the first plainer. 

word anole^d/xevoi stands alone a See Monitum ante Prsef.p.ii. 

C 



18 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



to have been aware, who say in p. 331. of their Im- 
proved Version > "that the received text reads God 
" upon the authority of no MS. of note or value V 
This is also the reading of the oldest MSS. of the Sy- 
riac version c , which is supposed to have been made 
early in the second century, if not at the end of the 
first. Thus, though the authority for Kvpkv, Lord, is 
also very respectable, the oldest MS. and the oldest 
version support the reading of 6eov, God: to which it 
may be added, that the expression, church of God, 
occurs in not fewer than eleven passages of St. Paul's 
Epistles ; whereas the phrase, church of the Lord, 
occurs nowhere in the New Testament. 

It comes more within the object of the present 
work to shew what is the authority for either read- 
ing, according to the quotations which the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers have made of this passage. The 
usual statement is, that Ignatius and Tertullian 



b Griesbach, as is well known, 
sums up the evidence decidedly 
against the reading of ®eov : but 
it must be remembered, that he 
names many MSS. in his pre- 
face, of which he had no colla- 
tions or very imperfect ones : 
and though he states that no 
good MS. reads ®tov, it is pro- 
bable that he must have quali- 
fied this assertion, if he had 
been better acquainted with 
some of his MSS. Thus he was 
ignorant of the fact, mentioned 
above, that the Vatican MS. 
reads ®eov. He also takes no 
notice of the Florentine MSS. 
numbered by himself 84 and 89. 
Dr. Elmsley examined these at 
Florence, and both of them read 
®€ov. Griesbach considers the 



former to be of the tenth cen- 
tury, the latter of the eleventh. 
Dr.E. also examined those num- 
bered 87 and 88, and found 
them to read Kvptov koI ®eov. A 
MS. in the library at Christ 
Church, which was considered 
by archbishop Wake to be 700 
years old, reads nvpiov kou 6eov, 
and another which appears also 
to be of the eleventh century, 
reads ®eov. 

c I assert this on the author- 
ity of professor Lee, who has 
not yet published an account of 
his collations of Syriac MSS. : 
but he has stated it in some re- 
marks, which may be seen in 
Dr. Wait's translation of Hug's 
Introduction, vol. I. p. 370. 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



19 



support the received reading — the church of God, 
and that Irenaeus quotes it the church of the Lo?*d d . 
But the truth is, that Irenaeus is the only one of the 
Fathers of the three first centuries who quotes the 
passage at length, and he certainly quotes it the 
church of the Lord c . We must remember however 
that the original Greek of Irenaeus is lost, and all 
that remains is a Latin translation, which, although 
very ancient, is not sufficiently accurate for us to 
trust to it in the question of a various reading. For 
in some places, where fragments of the Greek have 
been preserved, we can prove that the translator 
confounded the terms Lord and God, God and 
Christ, &c. &;c. and substituted one for the other. 
Thus at p. 296 f , we read in the Greek, "the art and 
" wisdom of God:" but in the Latin, "the wisdom 
" of the Lord." At p. 294 s, the Greek has " the 
" body and blood of the Lord:" but the Latin 
reads, " the body and blood of Christ." At p. 3 h , 
Irenaeus speaks of " blasphemy against Christ:" but 
his translator renders it " blasphemy against God." 
The translator being proved to have made these 
substitutions, we cannot make much use of his au- 
thority in deciding the proper reading of Acts xx. 
28. and I cannot help quoting another passage from 
Irenaeus, which shews what his own opinion was 
concerning the divinity of that Person, who redeemed 
us by his blood. He says \ " Remember then that 
" you have been redeemed by the flesh of our Lord, 



d Home's Introduction, II. 
p. 336. The editors of the 
Improved Version say, that <e the 
" word Lord is supported by 
" citations from the early eccle- 
" siastical writers." 



e III. 14, 2. p. 201. 
f V. 3, 2. 

S V. 2, 3. 

h I. procem. 

1 V- 14. 4- P. 3"- 

c 2 



20 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



" and restored by his blood, and holding the head 
"from which all the body of the church knit toge- 
" ther increaseth, (Col. ii. 19.) both confess him to 
" be God, and firmly acknowledge his human na- 
" tureV 

There is however one passage quoted from a Post- 
Nicene Father, which, though it does not properly 
come within the scope of this work, may be noticed 
here, because, if the quotation were admitted, we 
could scarcely entertain a doubt, but that the ex- 
pression blood of God was nowhere to be found in 
the scriptures. In a note to the Improved Version 
it is said, that " the expression the blood of God is 
" rejected with horror by Athanasius, as an inven- 
" tion of the Arians and we may understand the 
author of this note better by referring to Mr. Bel- 
sham's " Calm Inquiry," published in 1817. At 
p. 141 of that work he has the following passage : 
" Our scriptures, says Athanasius, nowhere mention 
" the blood of God. Such impudent expressions are 
" only used by Arians :" and in the note he gives 
the original thus ; " Ovla^ov oufxa Seov Kaf? vj^ag 
6i 7rapo$eh®Ka(Jt al ypa<pa,i' 'Apeiavuv ra Toiavra ToX^^otTcc. 
" Athanas. cont. Apollin. apud Wetstein. in loc." 
This seems very strong and very decisive. But Mr. 
Belsham had better have looked into the works of 
Athanasius, than have copied from Wetstein. It is 
true that Wetstein, in his edition of the New Testa- 
ment, does give the quotation in these words : but it 
is also true, that they are not the words of Athana- 
sius. Wetstein inserted kol$ Y^mg from his own head, 
and left out the words a-ap/tog, upon which the 

k Et Deum confitens, et hominem ejus firmiter excipiens. 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



whole meaning of the passage turns. In the Greek 
of Athanasius 1 it is thus ; Ovlafxov cupa OeoS liya 
aapKog 7rapa$e$do/«x(Tiv al ypa<pa} 9 yj Seov $l%a crapKog iraQovTa 
kou avaGTavra' 'Apeiavwv ra roiavra ToX[M^[xara : which 
means in English, (Mr. Belsham will pardon my 
translating it,) " The scriptures nowhere speak of 
" the blood of God without flesh :" i. e. without 
adding something which implies the incarnation of 
God ; " nor of God suffering and rising again 
" without flesh : they are Arians who venture to 
" use such expressions." Mr. Belsham was proba- 
bly not aware, that this work of Athanasius was 
written against the Apollinarian heretics, who, 
though proceeding from different principles, arrived 
at the same erroneous conclusion with the Patripas- 
sians : they held, that Christ did not take a real 
body composed of flesh and blood, but that his body 
was uncreated and heavenly. Hence some of them 
believed with the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. that 
Christ suffered in appearance only : but others af- 
firmed, that the body, which suffered, was divine ; or 
in other words, that it was the Deity which suffered 
in Christ. Athanasius asserts in this book, that the 
scriptures never speak of Jesus suffering as God, 
but in his human nature ; or, as he says in the pas- 
sage misquoted by Mr. Belsham, that " the scrip- 
" tures never speak of the blood of God without 
" mentioning or implying his flesh m :" and my read- 

1 Contra Apol. II. 14. p. carne. III. 20, 4. p. 214. and 

95 1. again, that " we are not to think 

m Thus Irenaeus says, that " him merely a man, nor yet sus- 

" it was neither a mere man t£ pect him from his nameEmma- 

" who saves us, nor yet without " nuel to be God without flesh," 

"jlesh" — neque homo tantum uti non nude solummodo 

erit qui salvat nos, neque sine eum hominem intelligeremus ; 

c 3 



22 



IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



ers will hardly believe, that in the very next sen- 
tence he goes on to say — " but the holy scriptures 
" speaking of God in the flesh, and of the flesh of 
" God when he became man, do mention the blood 
" and sufferings and resurrection of the body of 
" God :" al ayiau ypa<f>ou h aapKi Seov kou aapKog Seov 
avSpairov yevojxevov alpa kou nddog kou dvaaraa-iv Ky}pvTT0vai 
crcopocTog Seov. So much for the accuracy of Mr. Bel- 
sham's quotation, and for the assertion of the Uni- 
tarian translators, that the expression 66 the blood of 
" God is rejected with horror by Athanasius n !" to 
which I may add, that this passage of Athanasius 
makes directly against the Unitarians : for since 
that Father tells us, that the scriptures do speak of 
the blood of God, we ask, where else do they speak 
of it, except in Acts xx. 28 ? and what is more to 
the point, Athanasius himself quotes the passage 
from Acts xx. 28. more than once, and expressly 
reads the church of God°. 



neque rursus per nomen Emma- 
nuel sine carne eum Deum sus- 
picaremur. III. 21, 4. p. 217. 

n That Mr. Belsham bor- 
rowed his false quotation from 
Wetstein is quite evident : but 
I am sorry to add that Gries- 
bach, who ought to have known 
better, has been guilty of the 
same mistatement. After men- 
tioning the Fathers who sup- 
port the reading ouy.cc Seov, he 
adds, Sed nec defuerunt, qui 
tales formulas vituperarent et 
scripturam sic nunquam locu- 
tam esse contenderent : and 
afterwards he says more dis- 
tinctly, Tantum vero abfuit, ut 
hoc telo adversaries suos confi- 
cerent, ut potius antiquiores 



patves nonnulli, et inter hos vel 
ipse Athanasius c. Apollinar. in 
sacris Uteris alya ©eoulegi nega- 
rent. We can hardly acquit 
Griesbach of a wilful mistate- 
ment in extending the remark 
from Athanasius to others of 
the Fathers. He clearly had not 
examined the passage in Atha- 
nasius ; and he did not specify 
any other writer, because he 
was unable. 

0 In Epist. ad Serap. I. 6. 
vol. I. p. 653. the Benedictine 
edition has ©ecu, one MS. reads 
Kvptov, and three read Xpiarov. 
There seems to be an allusion 
to this text in his Commentary 
upon Psalm xcix. 3. yvSre qti 
Kvpioq avTo\ iariv o @eoq '^u&v, where 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 23 

I cannot help also noticing an inconsistency in 
Mr. Belsham's mode of argument. In the passage 
before us he wishes us to read the church of the 
Lord; and by the Lord he means us to understand 
Jesus Christ. But it is singular that at Col. iii. 13. 
he wishes to read, not as Christ has forgiven us, 
but as the Lord has forgiven us, and there he in- 
terprets the Lord to mean God: so that at Acts 
xx. 28. he tries to evade an argument for the di- 
vinity of Christ by understanding the Lord to mean 
Christ; and at Col. iii. 13. he evades a similar ar- 
gument by understanding the Lord to mean God I 

We will now try the accuracy of another assertion 
of the Unitarian translators, that the expression 
" the blood of God is not quoted by the earliest 
" ecclesiastical writers." We have already seen that 
Ignatius uses this expression in his Epistle to the 
Ephesians : and in his Epistle to the Romans he 
says, " I long for the bread of God, heavenly bread, 
" the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, 
" the Son of God p, who was born in later times of 
" the seed of David ; and I long for the cup of God, 
" his blood <*." 

he observes, ovro<;, ^aiv, b Kvpioq Ath. vol. I. p. 779. Epiphanius 

0 t£ idlq) ai/x,«T< noiaocv Kvrpaxrcc- quotes eV^X^tr/av tov ®eov, and he 

pevoi; tvjj/ yyv, avToq itrriv 6 kou tov adduces the passage in support 

ypeTepov noif^aToc, tfjiMovpyoq. vol. of the divinity of Christ. Hser. 

I. p. 1 177. In the treatise as- LXXIV. 6. vol. I. p. 895. 
cribed to Athanasius, de corn- p I believe the true transla- 

muni Essentia Patris et Filii, all tion to be — " Jesus Christ, the 

the MSS. read iKKfaqarlav tov " Son, who is God, who was 

@eov. vol. II. p. 4. The em- " born," &c. but since the words 

peror Jovian seems to allude to will bear the other construction, 

this text, and to confirm the I do not wish to quote them as 

received reading, when he says, proving the divinity of Christ, 
in a letter to Athanasius, iirdviOi "J "Aprov Qeov 6e\a, apTov ovpd- 

toIvvv e*g Tccq dyiaq lKKhY\<T\ac,, kou viov, apTov ^oorjt;, tq i&Ti accp^ 'lyo-ov 

noi[xouve tov tov &eov Xaov. Op. Xpio-roi), tov vlov tov &eov tov yevo- 

C 4s 



24 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



There is a remarkable passage in Justin Martyr, 
which may be quoted in this place. Like the rest 
of the Fathers he refers Gen. xlix. 11. to Christ, 
which in the Septuagint version is thus : irXwet ev 

o'lv® TYjV <7T0\y}V OLVT0V) KOU €V OLlfJLaTl UTaCpvX^ TY}V TTeplftokYJV 

avrov' upon which Justin observes, " The words 
" blood of the grape are used purposely to express, 
" that Christ has blood, not from the seed of man, 
" but from the power of God. For in the same 
" manner that man does not produce the blood of 
" the vine, but God ; so also this passage foretold, 
" that the blood of Christ was not to be of human 
s< origin, but from the power of God : and this pro- 
" phecy shews, that Christ is not a man, begotten of 
" men according to the common law of men r ." Eu- 
sebius, speaking of the same text, says, that men 
" are redeemed by the blood of the grape, which 
" has God dwelling in it, and is spiritual s ." 

Clement of Alexandria speaks of " the power of 
" God the Father and the blood of God the Son V 

Tertullian says ; " I well know, we are not our 
" own, but bought with a price : and what sort of 
"price? the blood of God u " It is this passage, 



[Atvov Iv vcrrepip e'/c cnapfAaToq Aa/S/S' 
kou nopa ®eov 6eXa to alpa, avrov. 
It might be said however that 
ainov refers to 'lyo-ov Xpio-rov. c. 7. 

r To §e alpa Tyq ara<pv\yji; el- 
meiv tov Xoyov, hia Tvjq Tt^v^q SeS'/j- 
A&}K6v, 'on alfxa jwey e%ei 0 Xpitrroq 
ovk e'| avQpuvov cricep^aToq, aXX' Ik 
TVjq tov &€0v dvvd \J.zotq. ''Ov yap 
rpoizov to TYjq d^-weXov al[*a ovk av- 
$pct)Ttoq iyevv/}(7€v, dXkd ®eoq, ovruq 
Kol to tov Xpto~~ov aljj.a ovk e| dv- 
Gpundov yevovq e<r€<rdai 3 aXX' e/c 



Seov hvvdfAeuq npoeixyvvo-ev. 'H he 
KpocpvjTeia avT'/j diroheiKVvei, qti gvk 
eo-Tiv 0 XptcrToq avBpuiroq i!j dvOpunrav 
Kara to koivov tuv avdpwirav yevvyj- 
Beiq. Dial, cum Try ph. 54. p. 

H9— 5°- 

s Dem. Evang. VIII. p. 380. 

* Awd[A€i Seov narpoq Ka) aif^ari 

®eov nathoq. Quis Dives Salve- 
tur? c. 34. p. 954. 

u Quod sciam, non sumus 
nostri, sed pretio ernpti : et quali 
pretio ? sanguine Dei. Ad Uxo- 
rem, II. 3. p. 168. 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 25 

which has caused Tertullian to be named as reading 
the church of God in Acts xx. 28. but his words 
bear such a direct reference to another text, 1 Cor. 
vi. 19, 20, that we cannot say, whether he had the 
words of St. Paul to the Ephesians also in his mind. 

Origen upon those words of Psalm lxxi. 19. " Thy 
" righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast 
" done great things" &c. remarks, " having given 
" peace by His blood to the things in heaven and 
" in earth x ." The pronoun His can only refer to 
God, who had done great things : but we may ob- 
serve, that Origen's commentary is a manifest allu- 
sion to Col. i. 20. " having made peace through the 
66 blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things 
" unto himself: by him, whether they be things in 
" earth, or things in heaven :" in which passage it 
is difficult to decide the person to whom eipvjvoTroivjo-ae 
having made peace, and avrov his are to be re- 
ferred. 

Origen, like other commentators, considered the 
Song of Solomon to refer to the union of Christ and 
his church ; and upon those words, v. 10. " My be- 
" loved is white and ruddy," he says, referring them 
to Christ; " white, because he was very God: and 
" ruddy, on account of the blood which was shed 
" for the church y." This passage might seem par- 
ticularly to contain an allusion to Acts xx. 28. on 
account of the church being mentioned in connexion 
with the blood of God. 

Dionysius of Alexandria says, " The holy blood of 
" our God Jesus Christ is not corruptible, nor the 

x elp^voTtot^araq §ia, Toy al^ocroc, y XevKoi;, inei^rj o @eo$ aX'q&ivot;' 
avrov tcc Iv ovpowoTq kou roc in) "yvj?. wfipoq $<a to al(/,a to vnep Tr\<; 
II. p. 760. kKKkn*la$ %vQzv. III. p. 98. 



26 



IGNATIUS, A. D. 107. 



" blood of a mortal man like ourselves, but of very 
" God 7 ''' Epiphanius (if the treatise be genuine) 
speaks of the church, ovKeri aifxari SovXiku (pvpcofxevy, 
aXXa oufAan QeiKcp acfypayi&fxevY]. Serm. in Fest. Palm, 
vol. II. p. 254. 

Having already mentioned the assertion of the 
Unitarian translators., that " the blood of God is not 
" quoted by the earliest ecclesiastical writers," I 
leave the reader to draw his inference as to the ac- 
curacy of the remark ; and I only observe, that these 
passages alone might seem sufficient to prove, that 
the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed in the divinity of 
Christ. That they believed him, who shed his blood 
on the cross, to be God in some sense or other, can- 
not be denied : it is for our opponents to prove, that 
they did not believe him to be verily and essentially 
God. 

12. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 7. p. 13. 
In the same Epistle, having warned the Ephe- 
sians to beware of those who taught false doctrines, 
and whom he considered almost incurable, he says, 
" There is one Physician, fleshly and spiritual, made 
" and not made, God born in the flesh, true life in 
" death, both of Mary and of God, first capable of 
" suffering, and then incapable a ." There is little to 



z ov <p6aprov to alpa to ayiov 

TOV ®€0V f\\fMV *\f\O~0V XplGTOV, 0VT€ 

avBouTtov KaO' 7I[a3,<; O^tov, aXkbt, 

Qeov ScX'/jBivov. c. Paul. Samos. 
Qusest. IV. p. 237. 

a E*s larpoq iaTiv aapKiKot; re kou 
irv€V[Aa,TiKG<;, yew/pos kou ayevvvjroi;, 
iv aapKi yevo^evoi; 066$, iv OocvaTtp 
^covj xXyOivrj, kou Ik Maplaq kou £k 
®tov, npaiTOV naB^Toq kou to'tc clticl- 

6y<;. The commentators are in 
doubt whether to read <y«ojTo$ and 



ayevYjToi; or yevvvjToi; and ocyevwjToq 
in this place. There is no doubt, 
that after the council of Nice 
the difference between these two 
expressions was carefully ob- 
served; but earlier writers some- 
times confounded them. The 
difference seems to have been 
that yewriToc, and o\yewf\Toc, meant 
begotten and not begotten, yevyj- 
Toq and ayevrjToq meant made or 
created, and not made or not 



IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



observe upon these words, which expressly assert 
the two natures of Christ, except that they may 
remind us of the passage in John i. 14. " The Word 
" was made flesh, and dwelt among us :" and they 
may also seem to support the received reading in 
1 Tim. iii. 16. God was manifest in the flesh, which 
I shall have occasion to notice more at length in a 
future page. 



created. See Damascen. I. 9. 
Epiphan. Hser. LXIV. 8. vol. I. 
p. 532. We should therefore 
say of the Son, that he was yev- 
y/jTot; not yevq-ros, l. e. he was 
begotten of the Father, not made 
or created: and that he was 

ccyev'fj-voq but not ayivv/jTOi;. Ill 

classical writers we meet with 
no such distinction. We might 

notice deoyen^q and OvrjToyevrjt; in 

two consecutive lines of Sopho- 
cles, (Antig. 834-5,) where the 
metre evidently decides the 
omission or insertion of the v. 
Cicero also in translating a pas- 
sage from the Phaedrus of Plato, 
apx>] ayivvjrov, renders it, prin- 
cipii autem nulla est origo, and 
eneiVfi 8e ocyevrjTou icrri, quod si 
nunquam oritur. (Tusc. Disp. 
I. 23.) In the same manner 
ecclesiastical writers sometimes 
confounded the terms : thus 
the Son was said to be ayev- 
vvitoi;, by which it was not meant 
that he was not begotten, but 
that he was not created: and 
Origen was greatly censured 
for calling the Son yei/>?To<; ©eoV 
though he certainly did not 
mean, that he was a created 
God; for in one of his works 
(c. Cels. VI. 17. p. 643.) he 
expressly calls him ayevyrov, un- 



created. The fact is, that Ori- 
gen, like the writers before and 
after him, used the terms with- 
out reflection, and it is probable 
that Ignatius did so in this place, 
where he wished to mark the 
antithesis of the two natures in 
Christ, according to one of which 
he might be said to be made, 
like any other man, but accord- 
ing to his divine nature, he was, 
like God, uncreated. Athana- 
sius asserts that the Arians first 
insisted upon the exclusive ap- 
plication of ayevriToq to God the 
Father, meaning thereby to in- 
clude the Son among yevvjTa. If 
this be true, it would account 
for the confusion of terms in 
the writers who went before 
him. De Decret, Syn. Nic. §. 28. 
vol.1, p. 233. cf. Orat. I. contra 
Arianos, 31. p. 435. 32. p. 437. 
De Synodis 46. p. 760. See 
Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. II. 2. 
6. and 9. 9. Huet. Origeni- 
ana, II. Qusest. 2. §. 23. Sui- 

cer in VOC. ocykvt\roc, and yevfjioq. 

Waterland, IV. p. 239, 260. 
and particularly Petavius de 
Trin. 1. V. c. 1. Instead of iv 
aapK) yevopevoc, ©eo? in the above 
quotation, Athanasius, Theodo- 
ret, and Gelasius read iv av- 

Bpunco ©eo?. 



28 IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



13. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 18. p. 15. 
After quoting from St. Paul, (1 Cor. i. 20.) " Where 

" is the wise, where is the disputer f where is the 
" boasting of those who are called intelligent ?" he 
adds, " for our God Jesus Christ was conceived by 
" Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of the 
" seed indeed of David, but of the Holy Ghost b ." 

14. Ignatii Epist. ad Eph. c. 19. p. 16. 

In the next chapter he alludes to the star, which 
guided the wise men to Bethlehem, and mentions 
some extraordinary circumstances, which he con- 
ceived either figuratively or literally to have at- 
tended its appearance : " Then," he says, " all magic 
" art was destroyed, and every bond of iniquity was 
" abolished ; ignorance was put away, the old king- 
" dom was destroyed, when God was manifested 
" humanly for the newness of eternal life c ." 
15. Ignatii Epist. ad Magnes. c. 6. p. 19- 

The preexistence of Christ in union with the Fa- 
ther is asserted in the following passage, where, 
speaking of Christ, Ignatius adds, " who was with 
" the Father before the worlds, and appeared at the 

« end d . " 

16. Ignatii Epist. ad Trail, c. 7. p. 23. 

Having warned the people of Tralles to beware of 
heretics, Ignatius has these words, " Keep yourselves 
" then from such men : and you will do this, if ye 
" are not puffed up, and if ye do not separate from 
" God Jesus Christ e ." 

b e O yap 0eo? Tj/xav 'Ivjo-oS? o pevov elq /cammjTa aiViov £&>Sfe. 

XptcTTO? eKVCKpopYjO'S] vtio Maptat; Kar* d %<; ttpo aiavwv irapa naTpi 

oIkovo[aIo.v 0eov, eK critepfAtxToq [/.ev ^f, kcci ev teXei ecpdvrj. 

Aa/3/§, i:vev^a,Toq 8e dyiov. e Kai ovcriv d^aptcrroK; <deov 

c ■ 0eoS avdpom'tvat; (pavepo- 'Itjo-ou XpiaTOv. I have tried to 



IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



29 



17. Ignatii Epist. ad Rom. c. 3. p. 26-7. 
The title of the Epistle to the Romans has been 
alluded to above at p. 16. In the third chapter he 
exhorts the Romans to pray for him, that he might 
be a Christian, not outwardly only, but inwardly ; 
" That I may not only be called a Christian, but 
" really proved to be so ; for if I am proved, I may 
" easily have the name, and may be faithful even 
" w r hen I make no appearance to the world ; nothing 
" that is seen is eternal : for the things which are 
" seen are for a season only, but those which are not 
" seen are eternal f : for our God Jesus Christ is 
" rather seen by his existence in the Father s." This 
passage is somewhat obscure and difficult to be trans- 
lated, but the meaning of Ignatius seems to have 
been this. Having said, that whatever is visible to 
the eye is not eternal, he was aware that it might 
be said, that Jesus Christ, since he became visible to 
us in the flesh, is not eternal. He therefore guards 
against such an inference by saying, that though 
Jesus Christ Jiad been really and actually seen in 
his human nature, yet the only way in which we 
can fitly contemplate him is as existing in the Fa- 
ther : and thus his former remark holds good. Jesus 
Christ was seen in the flesh, for a season only : but 
as existing in the Father, and partaking of His 
godhead, he cannot be seen, and is eternal. In 
whatever manner we translate the sentence, Igna- 
tius expressly says, that Christ is God, and that he 
is in the Father. 

translate the last words literally : g ovth (paivopevov alavw to. yap 
otherwise the God Jesus Christ, tyawL^zva npoaKaipa' ra. Se jtwj /3Ae- 
Or our God JesUS Christ, would nopeva alavta.' 6 yeep @€0<; r-^av 
sound better in English. 'Ivjo-oS? Xpi<TTo<; iv narpi av paWov 

f See 2 Cor. iv. 18. <f>alverou. 



30 



IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



18. Ignatii Epist. ad Rom. c. 6. p. 28-9. 
Being now on his journey to Rome, whither he 

was going that he might be exposed to wild beasts 
in the Amphitheatre, he tells his brethren at Rome 
not to make any interest for his life ; he was willing 
to die : " Suffer me to catch the pure light ; when I 
<e am arrived thither, I shall be a man of God : per- 
" mit me to imitate the suffering of my God h ." It 
need not be observed that he alludes to the suffer- 
ings of God the Son. 

19. Ignatii Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 1. p. 33. 
This Epistle begins with an express declaration 

of the divinity of Christ. C£ I glorify Jesus Christ, 
" the God who hath endued you with such wisdom l ." 

20. Ignatii Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 10. p. 37. 

" As to Philo, and Rheus, and Agathopus, who 
" have followed me in preaching the word of God, 
" ye have done well in receiving them as ministers 
" of Christ [our] God k ." 

21. Ignatii Epist. ad Poly carp. c. 3. p. 40. 

It is unquestionable that Ignatius refers the fol- 
lowing expressions to Christ : " Wait for him who 
" is beyond all time, eternal, invisible ; who for our 
" sakes became visible ; who was not tangible ; who 
" was incapable of suffering, and for our sakes suf- 
" fered ; who endured in various ways for us 1 ." It 
is equally certain, that these expressions maintain 
the eternity of Christ as well retrospectively as pro- 
spectively, and the union of the two natures in him. 



h imrpeipare pot [/.t[/.'^rvjv elvoi 
irocQovt; rov ®eov f/.ov. 

1 Ao|a£&> 'I'/jaovv ~Kpio~Tov rov 
®eov rov ovraq vy.a<; (rocjjicravra,. 

k Ku'huq iiroirjo-are woSe^a- 

[Atvoi cbq hiaKovovq Xpio-rov Seov. 



1 Toy virepKaipov irpoo~hoKa y rov 
a%povov, rov a.opa.rov, rov oi vj^aiq 
oparov, rov a,ipvjAdc(p'/]rov, rov ana-dy, 
rov h' YjfAag naOyrov, rov Ka.ro. nuvro. 
rpmov §*' vitOfAeivavra.. 



IGNATIUS, A.D. 107. 



SI 



Irenaeus seems to have imitated this, when he says 
of Christ, " He is in all respects also a man, the 
" creature of God ; and therefore, summing up man- 
" kind in himself, the invisihle became visible, the 
" incomprehensible became comprehensible, the im- 
f passible became passible, and the Word became 
" man m :" and in another place, " The Word, natu- 
" rally invisible, who became palpable and visible 
" amongst men, and descended even to death n ." 
Ignatii Epist. ad Poly carp. c. ult. p. 42. 
He ends the Epistle to Polycarp with praying for 
his health " in our God Jesus Christ °." 

Having now finished the quotations from what 
are called the apostolic Fathers, I cannot help bring- 
ing forward two assertions which have been made 
within the last half century by two writers of con- 
siderable note among the Unitarians. Lindsey, in 
p. 158. of his Apology, uses these words : " Those 
" very early Fathers, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, 
" although free from any thing bordering on such 
" extravagancies, [those of the Docetae,] did never- 
" theless contribute to bring into Christianity the 
" Platonic doctrine of a second God, which they 
" had learnt before their conversion to the faith." 
The passage is rather oddly worded ; but the mean- 
ing of it is plain, that Justin (for he wrote before 
Irenaeus) was the first of the Fathers who speaks of 

m In omnibus autem est et 11 Et hujus Verbum, natura- 

homo, plasmatic* Dei ; et ho- liter quidem invisibilem, palpa- 

minem ergo in semetipsum re- bilem et visibilem in hominibus 

capitulans est, invisibilis visibi- factum, et usque ad mortem 

lis factus, et incomprehensibilis descendisse. IV. 24. 2. p. 260. 
factus comprehensibilis, et im- 0 'Epp3o-9<zi vpcZi; dia, navroq , iv 

passibilis passibilis, et Verbum ®e$ v^awv 'tyaov Xpi<rr$ eux°pau. 
homo. III. 16. 6, p. 206. 



32 JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



Christ as God. Dr. Priestley p expresses himself more 
plainly, and says, that " we find nothing like di- 
" vinity ascribed to Jesus Christ before Justin 
" Martyr." 

I do not wish to enter into any examination of 
these sentiments. I have laid before the reader, and 
I trust not unfairly, the words of those writers who 
lived before the time of Justin Martyr; and the 
reader will decide whether Mr. Lindsey and Dr. 
Priestley have given a true account of the doctrine 
of the apostolic Fathers. But there is another as- 
sertion of Dr. Priestley, which may be refuted more 
precisely. He says, <s that Justin Martyr is the first 
" writer who mentions the miraculous conception V 
The reader is referred to the words of Ignatius, 
given at N°. 12. and 13. which shew that this 
writer believed Mary to have been a virgin : and 
in another place r Ignatius says, that "the virgi- 
" nity of Mary was unknown to the prince of 
" this world." He also alludes to the star which 
appeared at the birth of Christ, which shews that 
he believed the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel 
to be genuine. 

Justin Mahtyu. A. D. 150. 
Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, the 
place which was anciently called Sychem, in Sa- 
maria; and, according to Fabricius, his birth took 
place about the year 89, though others place it 
later. After having studied philosophy in various 

p History of Corruptions, vol. " of Christ." History of early 

I. p. 32. He says of the Epistle Opinions, I. p. 93. 

of Clement, that " it contains ^ History of early Opinions, 

" no such doctrine as those of vol. IV. p. 107. 

" the divinity or preexistence r Ep. ad Eph. c. 19. p. 16. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



83 



schools, he was converted to Christianity, as some s 
think, about the year 133. The principal works of 
his, which have come down to us, are two Apolo- 
gies, or Defences of Christianity, presented to Ro- 
man emperors ; and a Dialogue, or Disputation, with 
Trypho, a Jew. The first Apology is supposed by 
some critics to have been presented to the emperor 
Antoninus Pius in the year 140, but others 1 bring 
it down to 150. After this, he went again to Asia, 
where he held his disputation with Trypho the Jew : 
and different dates have been assigned for the publi- 
cation of this Dialogue. Scaliger u thought that it 
was written in the reign of Hadrian ; but it is the 
opinion of Pearson, Du Pin, and almost every other 
critic, that it was published in the reign of Antoni- 
nus Pius, some x ascribing it to the year 140, others y 
to 155. Coming to Rome a second time, he presented 
his second Apology to the emperor M. Aur. Antoni- 
nus, probably about the year 162. That he died a 
martyr for the Christian faith, is an undoubted fact, 
as is shewn by the name which he always bears. His 
death is supposed by some z to have happened in 
164, by others a in 168. Epiphanius is undoubtedly 
wrong, who says that he died at the age of 30, in 
the reign of Hadrian b . 

These dates, though they differ so much from 
one another, sufficiently confirm the assertion of 
Methodius c and Eusebius d , that J ustin was not far 



s Tillemont. Cave. 
* Tillemont. Grabe. 
u Animadv. in Chron. Eus. 
p. 229. 

x Pagi. Basnage. 

y Massuet. 

z Cave. Fabricius. 



a Tillemont. 

b This is demonstrated by Pe- 
tavius in a learned and valuable 
note upon Epiph. Haer. XLVL 
vol.11, p. 81. 

c Photius, Cod. 234. 

d H. E. II. 13. 



34 JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 

removed from the apostolic times. His first work 
was written in the former part of the second cen- 
tury, when many persons must have been alive who 
had seen the apostles e ; at all events the interval was 
not so great, as to allow the probability of his intro- 
ducing any new doctrines of his own. We have 
seen that Mr Lindsey accused him of having done 
so, by "bringing into Christianity the Platonic doc- 
" trine of a second God." Had we found no traces 
of Jesus being called God either in the New Testa- 
ment, or in the works of the apostolic Fathers, it 
would have been difficult, perhaps impossible, to re- 
fute this assertion. As it is, the truth or falsehood 
of it will appear by an examination of the writings 
of those who preceded him ; and Mr. Lindsey him- 
self must be cited as a witness to the fact, that Jus- 
tin Martyr at least speaks of Christ as God. Dr. 
Priestley indeed says f , 66 We can hardly doubt 
" (whether Justin confesses it or not) that the doc- 
" trine of the simple humanity of Christ must have 
" been the prevailing one in his time." Now, with 
Dr. Priestley's permission, I would observe, that 
what he seems to treat as an unimportant point, viz. 
whether Justin asserts it or not, is a point of the 
greatest importance ; or rather it is the only means 
which we have of judging of the accuracy of his 
statement. For his assertion reduces him to this al- 
ternative. If the simple humanity of Christ was 
the prevailing doctrine of Justin's days, the works of 
Justin must contain that doctrine. If he admits 

e Quadratus, who wrote about H. E. IV. 3. 
A. D. 124, said that persons f History of early Opinions, 

were alive even in his days who III. p. 287. 
had been cured by Christ, Eus. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



35 



that they do not, but contends that Justin did not 
speak the sentiments of his contemporaries, I then 
ask, how are we to know what was the doctrine of 
those days, when no other works of the first forty 
years of the second century have come down to us, 
except those of Justin Martyr? It must therefore be 
important to decide the fact, whether Justin did or 
did not believe in the simple humanity of Christ : 
and the following quotations may perhaps assist us 
in coming to a conclusion. 

We may also remember the assertion of Eusebius, 
which has been before alluded to, that Justin, Mil- 
tiades, &c. all spoke of Christ as God : so that Eu- 
sebius at least was not of the same opinion as Dr. 
Priestley. But one of the most daring assertions ever 
uttered is made by Dr. Priestley in another place «, 
where, speaking of the miraculous conception, he 
represents Justin Martyr as saying to a Jew, " that 
" he was at full liberty to think as he should see 
" reason to do on that subject ; and that he might 
" be as good a Christian as the Ebionites were be- 
" fore him, though he should believe no more of the 
" miraculous conception than they had done." This 
is an entire invention. Justin, throughout his Dia- 
logue with Trypho, never makes any concession of 
the kind : on the contrary, he frequently insists on 
the miraculous conception as a necessary article of 
belief. References to the passages may be found in 
the note h . 

The reader is also referred to Dr. Waterland for 



s History of early Opinions, 

IV. p.T 3 . 

h Dial, cum Tryph. c. 43. 
p. 139, &c. c. 63. p. 160. c. 66. 



p. 163. c. 75. p. 172. c. 76. 
p. 173. c. 84. p. 181. c. 100. 
p. 195. 

D 2 



36 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



an able exposition of the doctrine of Justin Martyr 
concerning the divinity of Christ. III. p. 249. &c. 
23. Justin. Apol. l a . c. 63. p. 81. 
This first quotation is taken from the Apology or 
Defence which, as stated above., Justin Martyr pre- 
sented in the year 140, or 150, to the emperor An- 
toninus Pius, and, in fact, to the senate and people 
of Rome. 

Like many other of the Fathers, he conceived 
that it was Christ who talked with Moses out of 
the bush ; and he condemns the Jews for confound- 
ing God the Father with His Son. " The Jews, who 
" think that it was always God the Father who 
" spoke to Moses, (whereas he who spoke to him 
" was the Son of God, who is also called an Angel, 
" and an Apostle \) are justly convicted both by the 
" prophetical spirit k , and by Christ himself, for 
" knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For 
" they, who say that the Son is the Father, are con- 
" victed of neither knowing the Father, nor of un- 
" derstanding that the God of the universe has a 
" Son : who, being the first-born Word of God, is 
" also God. And formerly he appeared to Moses 
" and to the other prophets in the form of fire and 
" an incorporeal image : and now in the time of 
" your empire, becoming man by a virgin, accord- 

1 Avto<; yap a-nayyeKkei %<ra let only place in the scriptures in 

yvuo-Oyjvcci, kou ScKcxniKherai pjvu- which Christ is called an Apo- 

a-cov ta-a ayyeXXerai. Justin, ib. stle ; though the promise of the 

When he says that Christ is Shiloh, or the Sent, must have 

called an Angel, he alludes to made the Jews acquainted with 

Exod. iii. 2. Isaiah ix. 6. (ac- this as one of the titles of the 

cording to the Septuagint,) lxiii. Messiah. 

9. Mai. iii. 1. As to his being k In allusion to Isaiah i. 3. 

called an Apostle, he must al- and Matt. xi. 27. as he himself 

hide to Heb. iii. 1. which is the tells us. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 37 



" ing to the Father's will, he endured to be de- 
" spised and to suffer for the salvation of those who 
" believe in him 1 ." 

We need not enter into the inquiry, whether Jus- 
tin was right in considering it to have been Christ 
who spoke to Moses. The change of person from 
the Angel of the Lord to the Lord himself in this 
place, and in Gen. xix. and elsewhere, shews that 
something more was intended, than an ordinary re- 
velation by one of the ministering and created spi- 
rits. The explanation given by Justin Martyr and 
the other Fathers may perhaps be the true one : 
but it is sufficient for our purpose that they held 
such a notion ; which they could not have done, if 
they believed in the simple humanity of Christ. 
Could Christ have said, / am the God of Abra- 
ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, 
if he had not been very God, one with the Father ? 
Or could he have spoken to Moses at all, if he had 
no existence previous to his birth at Bethlehem? 
Justin believed that it was Christ who spoke these 
words : he therefore believed that Christ was the 
Jehovah of the Old Testament ; and as he says ex- 
pressly in the passage quoted above, being the first- 
born Word of God, he is also God. 

Having stated that all the early Fathers agreed 

1 *\ovbouoi ovv y]y/]o-a,[A€voi de) rov 0$ Kai Aoyoq nvpoororoKoq av rov @eov 

narepa rav oXcov XeXaXvjKevai rol kou ®eoq vizapyjii. kou nporepov "bid 

Macei, rov XaXqo-avroq avra 'ovroq rvjq rov itvpoq [Aopcpvjq kou eiKovoq 

vlov rov ®eov -SiKataq eXeyypv- da-a^drov ra Mcocrei Kai roiq erepoiq 

rat koi did rov npo(p'/]riKov nrvevjxa- itpocpyjratq ecpdvq' vvv S' iv yjpovoiq 

roq, Kai Si' avrov rov Xpicrrov, ooq rvjq v[/.erepaq dpyfiq— Sia •napQe- 

ovre rov itarepa ovre rov vlov eyvoo- vov dvOpanoc yevo^evoq, Kara rvjv rov 

(Tolv. ol yap rov vlov itarepa (pa- itarpoq (3ovX-qv, vicep crtovqp'iaq rSv 

crKOvreq elvai eXeyypvrai pfre rov iticrrevovrav avra kou eiiovSev'fjOrivcci 

itarepa e.'Kio-rdp.evoi, [/.YjO' on eariv ku) itaQeiv vne^eivev. 
vloq ra warp) ruv oXoov yivooo-KOvreq' 

D 3 



38 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 



with Justin Martyr in referring these manifestations 
of Jehovah in the Old Testament to God the Son, 
I must interrupt the series of quotations for a short 
time in order to prove this point : but the instances 
being so many, I shall only mention a few of them, 
marking the passages in the Old Testament, and 
giving references to the works of the Fathers, in 
which these interpretations may be found. 

It was Christ who talked with Adam, Gen. iii. 8, 9. 
where the person is said to be the Lord God, v. 
Theophil. in Autol. II. 22. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16. 
p. 509. Irenseus, IV. 10. p. 239. 

It was Christ who spoke to Noah, Gen. vi. 13. 
Irenaeus, IV. 10. 

It was Christ who went down to confound the 
tongues at Babel, Gen. xi. 5. where it is said that it 
was the Lord. Justin. M. Dial, cum Try ph. c. 127- 
p. 220. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Novatian. 
c. 25. p. 723. 

It was Christ who " appeared to Abram, and 
" said unto him, I am the Almighty God." Gen. 
xvii. 1. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 121. p. 220. 
Clem. Alex. Psed. I. 7. p. 131, 

It was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the 
plains of Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1. where he is called the 
Lord, and the Judge of all the earth, ver. 25. Jus- 
tin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152. Clem. Alex. 
Paed. I. 7. p. 131. Tertull. adv. Marc. III. 9. p. 402. 
Origen. in Gen. Horn. IV. 3. 

It was Christ who rained fire upon Sodom, Gen. 
xix. 24. The Fathers particularly mention the ex- 
pression, " then the Lord rained upon Sodom and 
" upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord." 
Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152 : c. 127. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 39 



p. 221. Irenseus, III. 6. p. 180. Tertull. adv. Prax. 
13, 16. p. 507, 509. 

It was Christ who tempted Abraham, Gen. xxii. 
Origen. in Gen. Horn. VIII. 8. Cyp. Test. II. 5. 
p. 286. 

It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen.xxviii. 
13. where the person calls himself " the Lord God 
te of Abraham, and the God of Isaac." Justin. M. 
Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 156. Clem. Alex. Paed. 
I. 7. p. 131. 

It was Christ who spoke to Jacob in a dream, 
Gen. xxxi. 11, 13. where he calls himself the God 
of Bethel, (see Gen. xxviii. 13, 19.) Justin. M. Dial, 
cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. Cyp. Test. II. 5. Nova- 
tian. c. 27. p. 725. 

It was Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 
24. where it is expressly said that he was God, ver. 
28, 30. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, 
156. c. 125. p. 218. Irenaeus, p. 239- Clem. Alex. 
Paed. I. 7. p. 132. Concil. Antioch. (Reliq. Sacr. II. 
p. 470.) 

It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 
1, 9. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. 
where he says, " he is called God, and is God, and 
" will be m ." Cyp. Test. II. 6. 

It was Christ who appeared to Moses in the bush, 
Exod. iii. 2. where the person calls himself " the 
66 God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
" God of Jacob :" and at ver. 14. " / am that I 
" am? Justin. M. Apol. I. 62. p. 80. Dial, cum Tryph. 
c. 60. p. 157. Irenaeus, IV. 10, 12. Clem. Alex. Co- 
hort, ad Gent. p. 7. Tertull. adv. Jud. c. 9. p. 194. 

m ®eos KotXtiTai, Kcci Seoq i<rri, kcu terra*. 
D 4 



40 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 



It was Christ who said to Moses, (Exod. xx. 2.) 
" / am the Lord thy God, which have brought 
" thee out of the land of Egypt" Clem. Alex. Paed. 

I. 7. p. 131. 

It was Christ who spoke to Moses, Levit. vi. 1. 
and consequently who delivered the whole of the 
law. Origen. in Levit. Horn. IV. init. 

It was Christ who appeared to Joshua near Je- 
richo, Josh. v. 13. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 62. 
p. 159-60. 

These instances might be multiplied so as to make 
a volume ; but enough perhaps has been said to shew, 
that all the Fathers agreed in entertaining the same 
opinion n . I again repeat, that I am not concerned 
to inquire into the soundness of this opinion : but 
the Fathers, who held it, could not have believed 
that Christ was a mere man, nor even an angel : 
they assert over and over again, that the person who 
appeared to the patriarchs could not be an angel, 
because he is called God and Jehovah : and they as 
expressly assert, that he who revealed himself as 
God and Jehovah, was not the Father, but the Son. 
See Bull, Defens. Sect. IV. 3. and Waterland's Works, 

II. p. 20. I may add, that the Arians openly pro- 
fessed their belief that it was Christ, " to whom the 
" Father said, Let us make man, &c. who was seen 
" by the patriarchs face to face, who gave the law, 
u and spake by the prophets, &c.°" Eusebius, who 
has been suspected of Arianism, devotes the fifth 
book of his Demonstrate Evangelica to establishing 
this point. See also the same work, I. 5. p. 11. 

n St. Paul himself seems to ° Athanas. de Synodis, vol. I. 
give some countenance to this p. 740. See also p. 743. 
doctrine,. 1 Cor. x. 9. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



41 



We will now return to the testimonies from Justin 
Martyr. 

24. Justin. Dial, cum Try ph. c. 34. p. 130. 
One of Justin's longest works is a Dialogue or 
Disputation which he held at Ephesus with a Jew, 
named Trypho, in the year 140 or 155. After hav- 
ing shewn that the Jews misinterpreted many pas- 
sages of scripture, he brings forward the 72d Psalm, 
beginning with " Give the king thy judgments." 
His words are, " Where it is said, O God, give thy 
"judgment to the king, since Solomon was a king, 
" you think that the Psalm was spoken in honour 
" of him ; whereas the words of the Psalm expressly 
" declare that it is spoken in honour of the eternal 
" King, that is, Christ : for Christ is declared to be 
u a King, and a Priest, and God, and Lord, and 
" Angel, and Man,, and Chief-captain, and a Stone, 
" and a Child born ; and first made capable of suf- 
" fering, then returning into heaven, and again 
" coming hither with glory, and in possession of the 
" eternal kingdom, as I prove from all the scrip- 
" turesP." He then quotes the whole Psalm; and 
having finished it, he shews that though Solomon 
was a great king, there are many expressions in the 
Psalm which did not apply to Solomon, and were 
never fulfilled in him. 

All Christian writers, ancient and modern, have 
agreed in interpreting this prophetical Psalm of the 
reign of the Messiah : but what we have chiefly to 



P ■ tcov Xoyav tov xf/aAjj-ov 

dictpp'ftyjv K'fjpvcrtTCjytav el<; rov al&viov 
ficcatAeoc, TouTtVriv eli; rov XptcToy, 
elpvicrOou. o yap Xpicnoi; fiucritevc, 
Koci tepevq, kou &eoq, kou Kvpiot;, kou 
ayyekoq, kou avOpanoq, kou apyj.- 



arpa,T'/jyo<;, kou XiQoq, kou ncttitov 
yewa^tvov, kou naQ'^roq yevopevoq 
TtpaTOV, elra e<? ovpavov ocvep-ftofAeyoc, 
kou ncchiv nocpayivo l u.evo<; [xercc Softs', 
kou alavioi/ Tyv fiaaiAuav tyjAV ke- 

KYjDVKTCtl. 



42 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



observe in the comment of Justin Martyr is, that he 
not only calls Christ the eternal King, but he ex- 
pressly calls him God; and when he speaks of his 
ascension into heaven, he not merely says that he 
went thither, but that he returned thither, as in 
John vi. 62. thereby clearly asserting the preexist- 
ence of Christ. 

25. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 35. p. 132. 

Trypho having objected the corrupt practices of 
some who called themselves Christians, Justin ac- 
knowledges, that there were persons whose doctrine 
and practice were wholly contrary to the religion 
which they professed : but he adds, that such per- 
sons were not owned or received by sound Chris- 
tians. " We hold no communion with them, know- 
" ing them to be impious, and irreligious, and un- 
" just, and lawless ; and instead of worshipping 
" Jesus, they confess him only in name V Justin 
Martyr therefore, and all true Christians, worship- 
ped Christ : and yet Mr. Lindsey argues at some 
length 1 ", that Christ is not to be worshipped ; and 
at p. 141-2. he says, " the opinion and practice of 
" the ancient Christians before the council of Nice 
" has been often shewn from their writings ;" by 
which he must mean, that it has been often shewn, 
that the Christians before the council of Nice did 
not worship Christ. Justin Martyr, as appears from 
the present quotation, does not support Mr. Lind- 
sey's assertion; and at p. 160. after quoting great 
part of the 45th Psalm, he draws this conclusion 
from it ; " Now that he, who is testified of by the 

( 1 'fiv ovhev) KQivoMOviAev, ol yvapi- kou ocvt) tov tov \r\crovv tre/Seiv, ovo- 
ZpvTeq uQeovq Kct\ utrefitiq kou ctVt- paTi [/.Lvov opoXoye7v. 
Kovq kou ccvopovq avTovq ii:upx 0VTa i> T ApoL p. 1 3 6, &C. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 43 



" doer of these things, is to be worshipped, and is 
" God and Christ, the words of this Psalm plainly 
" shew s ." And at p. 165. " Do you think that any 
" other person is mentioned in the scriptures, who 
f is to be worshipped, and is Lord and God, except 
" Him who is the Creator of the world, and Christ, 
" who has been proved by so many texts to have 
" taken a human nature ' ?" See also N°. 29. Such 
were the sentiments of Justin Martyr concerning 
the worship of Christ. In a future page we shall 
see what were the doctrines of other of the Fathers 
upon this point. See N°. 73. 

26. Justin. Dial, cum Trijph. c. 36. p. 133. 

Justin begins a new line of argument with these 
words : <e You must allow me in the first place to 
" quote such prophecies as I please, to prove that 
" Christ is called God, and Lord of Hosts 11 , and 
" figuratively Jacob by the Holy Ghost x ." He then 
adduces the whole of the 24th Psalm, and makes 
this comment upon it ; " That Solomon is not the 
" Lord of Hosts has been proved : but when our 
" Christ rose from the dead, and ascended into 



s "Or* yovv kou itpouKWffcoq etrri 

KOU ©60? KOU XptCTTOS VT10 TOV TOCVTCC 

•noiriaavToq [AxpTvpovpevoq, kou ol Xo- 
yoi ovtoi diappYjd'/jv (rvjiAalvovai. Dial, 
cum Try ph. c. 63. 

1 M'^ t< dXXov Tivd itpoaKW-qrov, 
kou Kvpiov, kou ®eov Xeyo//.€voy iv 
Touq ypoupou*; voeTre eivou, ivX r f\v tov 
tovto noiYjeavToq to nctv, KOU TOV 
~Xpi<TT0v, 0$ dioc tcov Toa-Qvrov ypoc- 
(pav aTzebdyfifi vfMv dvdpconoq yevo- 

pevoq ; Dial. c. 68. 

u I may here mention the in- 
genious remark of Athanasius, 
that the second and third Per- 
sons of the Trinity are each of 



them called Lord of Hosts 
in the New Testament, which 
he proves thus : Isaiah speaks 
of the Lord of Hosts sending 
him to the people of Israel ; 
(vi. 1, 3, 8, 9.) St. John says 
that the glory which Isaiah saw 
was that of Christ; (xii. 41.) 
St. Paul says that it was the 
Holy Ghost, who spoke to Isaiah. 
(Actsxxviii.25.) Ath. De Incarn. 
i o. vol. I. p. 878. 

x elq eV/Sei^iv on kou Qeoq 

kou Kvpioq tojv tvvd^av o Xpio-roq 
kou 'lctKufi KaXeirou iv vapafioXri 
vTco tov dyiov TrvevpaToq. 



44 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



" heaven, those whom God has appointed officers 
" in heaven are commanded to open the gates of 
" heaven, that he who is the King of Glory may 
" enter in, and, having ascended, may sit down at 
" the right hand of the Father, until He make his 
" enemies his footstool. For when the officers in 
" heaven saw him bearing an uncomely and undig- 
" nified and inglorious form, they did not recognise 
" him, and asked, Who is this, the King of Glory ? 
66 and the Holy Ghost answers them, either in the 
" person of the Father or in his own, The Lord of 
66 Hosts himself, he is the King of Glory?" The 
answer is also attributed to the Holy Ghost by Epi- 
phanius z , but he supposed the question, Who is 
this King of Glory? to relate to his descent upon 
earth. Eusebius supposes the words to have been 
spoken by the angels, when Christ ascended a . In 
another work, which has been ascribed to Epipha- 
nius, the passage is applied to the descent of Christ 
into hell b . Justin calls Christ the Lord of hosts 
in another place c , where he says, " Let us Gentiles 
" join in glorifying God, for He has visited us also : 
" let us glorify Him by the King of Glory, by the 
" Lord of Hosts/' I should not perhaps have ven- 
tured to apply these expressions to Christ, if Justin 



y 'AXXd o vj^erepoq Xpio-rlq ore eK 
veKpav dvecrrrj kcu dve[3aivev elq rov 
ovpavhv, KeXevovrai ol iv ro7q ovpavoiq 
rayfievreq viro rov Seov dp^ovreq 
dvoT^at rdq itvXaq ruv ovpavav, Xva 
elieXB^ ovroq oq iari fia<TiXevq T7\q 
do^Tjq, koI dva[3uq KaBl<r^ k. r. X. 

ineiP/j yap ol iv ovpava dp^ov- 
req eapccv deity Kai drifAOv to elhoq 
Ka) abo^ov l^ovra avrov, ov yvapi- 
X^ovreq avrov, invvddvovro, rlq k. r. X. 
——Kai dvoKplverai avroiq ro nrvev- 



[Aa to dyiov ^ duo irpoo-eoTtov rov ira- 
rpoq, % dno rov 1%'iov, Kvpioq k. t. A. 

This passage is again applied to 
Christ at p. 181-2. 

z Physiol, vol. II. p. 190. 

a Dem. Evang. VI. 2. p. 260. 

b In Sepulchrum Christi, vol. 
Ho p. 272. 

c Dial, cum Tryph. 29. p. 1 26. 

Ao|aV«/>cey avrov $id rov fiacriXeuq 
ryq ho^rjq, hid rov Kvplov Tav tvvd- 
fiecov. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.150. 



45 



had not so applied them in the passage quoted above; 
and at p. 182. he says that this Psalm and other pas- 
sages of the scriptures declare him to be the Lord 
of Hosts. Compare Hippolytus, N°. 155. 

The next passage which he quotes is Psalm xlvii. 
from ver. 5. to the end, " God is gone up ivith a 
" shout" &c. He makes no comment upon these 
words ; but we may observe, that no passage in the 
whole of the Old Testament contains more express 
mention of God, the Lord of heaven and earth, than 
this Psalm : and Justin applies it to Christ. 

The next quotation is the 99th Psalm, " The 
" Lord reigneth" &;c. which he prefaces by saying, 
" The Holy Ghost also reproaches you in the 98th 
44 (99) Psalm, and shews that he, whom you will 
6e not have for your King, is King and Lord even of 
" Samuel, and Aaron, and Moses, and all other per- 
" sons whatever d ." 

87. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 48. p. 143. 

We may now give the sentiments of Justin Mar- 
tyr in the words of Trypho. The Jew, after some 
time, addresses him thus : " I have heard your opin- 
" ion upon these matters; resume the argument 
" therefore where you left it off, and finish it ; for it 
" seems to me to be extraordinary, and one that 
" cannot be demonstrated at all. For as to what 
" you say, that this Christ had a previous existence, 
" being God before the worlds, that he then endured 
" even to become a man, and to be born, and that 
" he is not man, born of man, this appears to me 
" not only extraordinary, but absurd R ." 

d Ka< iv ivei/v)KQ<TTa oyboa \pce\[Aa [AOVYjX kou tov 'Aapuv kcu M.ccv<xeoc<; 

ovcitt^ei v^ac, to nvev^a to Scyio' kou tSv ah'kwv navrav anXaq ovra 

Kai Tovrov %v {M} 6eXeT€ /3a<xiAea el- Ltrjvvet. P. 134. 

vai, (3aai\£a kou Kvpiov kou tov 2a- e To <yccp Xeyeiv ce Tzpov-Ttapyjiiv 



46 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.150. 



I need not state the manner in which Justin re- 
conciles this seeming contradiction : but his own 
opinion concerning the divine nature of Christ is 
very strongly expressed ; when, after confessing that 
some, who called themselves Christians, held Christ 
to be a mere man, he says, " With whom I do not 
" agree, nor would I agree, even if the majority of 
" those who now think with me were to say so f : 
" for we are commanded^ by Christ himself not to 
" follow the doctrines of men, but those which are 
" preached by the blessed prophets, and taught by 
" himself Justin therefore considered that the 
prophecies in the Old Testament, and the gospels 
in the New, plainly spoke of Christ as God h . 

At the end of the 54th chapter, he again very 
strongly asserts, " that Christ was not a mere man 
" born in the ordinary way of men i ." 

28. Justin. Dial, cum Try ph. c. 61. p. 157- 

" I will give you another proof from the scrip- 
" tures, that in the beginning, before all creatures, 



®eov ovra Ttpo alavuv rovrov tov 
Xpitrrov, elra Kai yevvrfirivai avBpoo- 
tcw yevopevov imo^eivai, Kai on ovk 
avBpooicoq if; dvBpairov, ov povov na- 
paZofcov $0Kei [/.oi elvai, dXkd Kai 
fxapov. 

f Dr. Priestley's version of 
this passage is very ungramma- 
tical — " with them I do not 
" agree, nor should I do so, 
" though ever so many, being 
" of the same opinion, should 
" urge it upon me." (History 
of early Opinions, III. p. 279.) 
But when he says that nearly the 
most literal rendering of the pas- 
sage is, " Neither do I agree 
" with the majority of Chris- 
" tians, who may have objected 



" to my opinion," (p. 283.) we 
cannot acquit him of unfairness 
as well as inaccuracy. 

S Kai yap elcri rivet; duo rov vj^e- 
repov yevovq o^o"koyovvreq avrov Xpi- 
crrov elvai, dvBpoovov Se e£ dvBpa-noov 
yevopevov d7iO(paivo[/,€voi' 01$ ov crvv- 
r[6e(/,ai 9 o£8' dv nXeTirroi Tavrd [/.oi 
hofjdaavret; etWev* ineidv] ovk dv- 
BpooTce'ioic titdy^acri KeKeXevcrpeBa 
vtt* avrov rov Xpi&rov Tte'iBeaBai, 
dKkd ro7q did ruv [AaKap'iwv Trpotyfj- 
rwv Kfjpvyfiiiio't Kai di avrov 8t- 
laxBelart. P. 1 44-5. 

h This passage is vindicated 
by Bull. Judicium, c. 7. 

1 on ovk eariv 0 Xpicrroq 

avBpwvoc, if; dvBpaitccVy Kara to kqi- 
vbv roov dvBpeonav yevvyBeti;. P. 1 50. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 



47 



" God begat a certain reasonable power of himself, 
" which is also called by the Holy Ghost the Glory 
66 of the Lord, and sometimes Son, sometimes Wis- 
66 dom, sometimes an Angel, sometimes God, some- 
" times Lord and WordK" He then quotes Prov. 
viii. 22. to the end, which many of the Fathers have 
considered to be spoken of Christ 1 . He also alleges 
Gen. i. 26. iii. 22. Joshua v. 13 — 15. as all of them 
shewing the preexistence of Christ in the Godhead. 

29- Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 68. p. 166. 

The next passage is important, as shewing the 
opinion which the Jews entertained concerning their 
Messiah. Justin's words are these : " As to the 
" scriptures which we quote to them, (the Jews,) 
" which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer 
" and to be worshipped, and that he is God, they 
w are compelled to allow that these were spoken 
" concerning Christ, but they have the presumption 
" to say that this (Jesus) is not the Christ : but they 
" acknowledge that he was to come, and to suffer, 
" and to be a King, and to be worshipped as 
" God ra ." 



k Motprvptov Se kou aKXo v{mv 
dicb roov ypcKpvv hacrcc, on dpy^v 
upo itdvTM rav Kn<xy.drav 6 ®co<; 
yeytvvvjKz ^vvotf/.iv rivd e£ eavrov 
XoyiKTjV, r\riq kou So£a K.vp(ov into 
rov 'nvevy.ctroq rov aylov KaXtTrcu 
k. r. A. 

1 " The Jews of old, and the 
" Christian church from the be- 
" ginning, understood that pas- 
" sage of a Person, the sabstan- 
" tial Wisdom of God, (either 
" the Word, or the Holy Spirit, 
" but generally the former.) 
" And this was no matter of 
" dispute between the catholics 



" and Arians formerly." Wa- 
terland, III. p. 144-5. See 
Irenseus, IV. 20,3. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. VII. 2. p. 832. Tertull. 
c. Hermog. c. 1 8 : c. Prax. c. 6. 
Origen. in Johan. I. 11, 17. Cy- 
prian. Test. II. t. Epiphanius 
is, I believe, the earliest writer 
who remarks, that this passage 
is not quoted in the New Tes- 
tament as referring to Christ. 
Hser. LXIX. 20, 21, 24. vol. I. 
P- 743' 745' 748- Ancor. 42, 
43. vol. II. p. 48. 

111 *A<; S 5 dv AeyufAev ctvrotq ypa- 
<pdq, cu hiappr^v rov Xpi<rrov kou 



48 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 



According to the opinion of the Jews therefore, 
who ought to be the best interpreters of their own 
prophecies, the human nature, and the humble con- 
dition of Jesus, were not the obstacles to their be- 
lieving him to be the Messiah : and it was their 
belief, as it is that of Christians, that the Messiah, 
who was to come, was God. Dr. Priestley was 
therefore entirely at variance with Justin Martyr 
when he said, that 66 the Jews expected that their 
" Messiah would be a mere man, and even be born 
" as other men are n ." If Justin reported the opin- 
ion of the Jews fairly, their expectations concerning 
the Messiah were directly opposite to these : and a 
remarkable expression of Philo Judseus may be 
quoted in this place, who, when he is speaking of 
the repugnance felt by the Jews to pay divine ho- 
nours to Caligula, observes, that " they would more 
" easily believe that God would change into man, 
" than a man into God °." Origen however certainly 
says, that all the Jews did not expect their Messiah 
to come as God, or Son of God p. We may observe 
also, that in this and other places already quoted, 
(see N°. 25. p. 42.) Justin expressly says, that 
Christ is to be worshipped as God ; and yet he as 
plainly says in many places, that there is only one 
God. 

Justin's arguments in this chapter arose from the 

itaQ'qrov kou npoo-KwyrGv kou ®€qv 11 History of early Opinions, 

amhetKvvovaiv lavtac, elc, Xpi- I. p. 23. 

(ttov y.\v elpyjcrOai avccyKa^oixevoi 0 ©S-ttov yap av eiq avBpomov 

cvvrldevraif tovtov y/q etvou ?ov 6eov,ri elq 6eov avBpuitov ^{Aerafia'keiv. 

Xpta-Tov toXjxaat Xeyeiv' ZXevo-ecQai De Virtut. vol. II. p. 562. 

de kou naQeiv, Ka) (3cc<riXev<Tai 9 kou P Cont. Celsum I.49. p. 366. 

TtpotrKwrfTov yevecrBai Seov ofioXo- and IV, 2. p. 5°3* 

yovaiv. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



49 



following remark of Trypho, who said to him, " You 
" are attempting to demonstrate a thing which is 
" incredible and almost impossible, that God sub- 
" mitted to be born and to become man V Justin 
however acknowledges the proposition, and proceeds 
to demonstrate it. 

30. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 71. p. 169. 
In the 71st chapter of this Disputation, Justin 

accuses the Jews of having expunged from the Sep- 
tuagint version of the Scriptures " many passages 
" which expressly shewed that this Jesus, who was 
" crucified, was spoken of as God and man, and cru- 
" cified and dead r ." Being asked by Trypho to 
name these passages, he quotes one from the book 
of Ezra, which is not in our copies s : he also names 
Jerem. xi. 19- which he says that the Jews had ex- 
punged : and he accuses them of mutilating Psalm 
xcvi. 10. To consider whether these charges were 
just or no, might lead us into an inquiry foreign 
from our present subject. I have quoted the pas- 
sage to shew, that in Justin's opinion the scriptures 
spoke of Christ as God and man. 

31. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 113. p. 206. 

Having remarked some points of resemblance be- 
tween Joshua and Jesus, he mentions the following: 
66 In the same manner that he, and not Moses, led 
" the people into the Holy Land, and as he divided 
" it by lot to those who entered in with him, so also 
" will Jesus Christ turn back the dispersion of the 

1 "Atticttov kou ahvyarov a-yj&ov ccvrot; o <TTavpaf)ei<;, oti Seoq, kou av- 
irpay[xoc, iitt^eipeTt; a.no'beiKVvat, oti dpunoq, kou aTctvpovf^evog, kou octcq- 
vnepeive yevv'/i$rjvou, kou avBpw- Qv-qaKav K€K7}pvyixevoq anobeiKVVTat. 

hoc, ytveaQou. s Lactantius quotes this pas- 

r Kou on 7roAXa$ ypacf)a.<; TeXtov sage as from the book of Ezra, 

itepiu'Kov — ef av happ-fivjv ovToq Inst. IV. 1 8. p. 324. 

E 



50 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 



" people, and portion out the good land to each ; 
6i but not in the same way : for he (Joshua) gave 
" them a temporary inheritance, as not being Christ, 
" who is God, nor the Son of God : but He, after 
" the blessed resurrection, will give to us the ever- 
" lasting possession V 

32. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 115, p. 208. 
In this place also he speaks of " Christ the Son of 

" the Father, our Priest and God 11 ;" and since the 
context is not necessary to make the words intelli- 
gible, I need not transcribe it. 

33. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 125. p. SI 8. 
Justin derives the word Israel from Isra, which 

signifies a conqueror, and el, strength, " Which it 
" was foretold that Christ would fulfil, when he be- 
" came man, by the mystery of Jacob's wrestling 
" with one who was visible, inasmuch as he served 
" his father's counsel ; but was God, inasmuch as he 
66 was His Son, begotten before the whole creation*." 
The true etymology of Israel seems to be that 
pointed out in Gen. xxxii. 28. and which is noticed 
by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 5. p. 334. 

34. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 126. p. 219. 
The next passage requires to be given more at 

length. He says to Trypho, " If you had known 
" who this is ? who is called the Angel of great 



4 OwceV* he Kara, ravra' o pt.h 
yap npoGKaipov ehcoKev avrdiq t\v 
KM)povo(Aictv 9 are ov Xpiarog o Seo; 
av, ovhe vloq ®eov' o he pera r\v 
dylav avaaratxw aldoviov y][mv r\v 
Kardcr^etrip "hacrei. 

u rov yperepov Upeoaq, kcu 

@eou, Ktxi Xpivrov, vtov rov icarpoq 
rav %'hav. 



x "Ottep kcu hta rov [Avcrrrjp'iov 
rrjq irdXvji; r\v eTtdXauxev 'Ia/cw/3 jxera 
rov (patvo^evov pev, eK rov tt) rov 
mccrpoi; (3ovX^ inrypert'iv, Seov he, eK 
rov elvai reKvov izpuroroKOV rav oXav 
KriafAarw, inert pocpyrevro ovruq koi 
avOpconoq yevopevoq o Xpiaroq noivj- 
(reiv. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



51 



" Counsel?, and by Ezekiel a man, and by Daniel 
" the Son of man, and by Isaiah a child, and by 
" many Christ, and God who is to be worshipped, 
" and David, and Christ, and a stone, and by Solo- 
" mon Wisdom, and Joseph and Judah and a star 
" by Moses, and by Zechariah the East, and by 
" Isaiah subject to suffering, and Jacob, and Israel, 
" and a staff, and a flower, and the head stone of 
" the corner, and the Son of God, — I say, if you 
" had known this, you would not have spoken blas- 
" phemies against him who is already come, and has 
" been born and suffered, and ascended into heaven ; 
" who will also come again, and then your twelve 
6 f tribes will mourn. For if you had understood 
" what the prophets have said, you w r ould not have 



y Instead of " Wonderful, 
" Counsellor, the mighty God,''' 
which we read from the He- 
brew at Isaiah ix. 6. the Sep- 
tuagint translation substituted 
Angel of great Counsel, ^yaX-qq 
PovXvjq ayyeXoq : and since most 
of the Fathers followed the Sep- 
tuagint, we do not find this text 
quoted in proof of the divinity 
of Christ so often as we might 
expect. Irenseus however quotes 
it literally, Consiliarius, Deus 
fortis, IV. 33, ri. p. 273. and 
in III. 19, 2. p. 212. mirabilis 
Consiliarius et Deus fortis. Clem. 
Alex, also quotes it o-vufiovXoq, 

Seoq §vva<rrv}<;' but the words (xe- 
ydX'/]q fiovXyjq ayyeXoq precede the 

other, so that his copies seem 
to have united the two readings : 
Pad. L 5. p. 112. Tertullian 
read Magni Consilii Angelus, de 
Carne Christi, c. 14. p. 319. but 
Dionysius of Alexandria says, 
that Isaiah foretold the mighty 



God, God a child, and a Virgin, 
&C. ®€ov Ic-yvpov, Seov -naiViOv, k.t. X. 

which seems to be an allusion 
to this text, p. 207-8. and in 
another place, Seoq layyplq, i£ov- 

(TiocaT^iq, icpxcov eip'qvqq, na/ity rov 
[xeXXovroq alavoq, p. 238. Atha- 
nasius certainly unites both 

readings, peyaXriq (3ovXvjq ocyyeXoq, 
®eoq \<ryvp\q, trover tacnyjq, itar^p rov 
yeXXovroq alavoq. In Mat. XI. 27. 
vol. I. p. 107. and fx. jS. a. 6a.v- 
y^occrroq, crv[Jt.(3ovXoq, ®eoq to-ftvpoq, 
k. t. X. De Incarn. 22. p. 889. 
So also Eusebius, u. jS. a. ap%m 

elp'/jvyq, ®eoq lor'^upoq, i^ovaria<TTrjq, 

■xaTvjp k. t. a. Dem. Evang. V. 
10. p. 236 : and, at p. 336, he 
observes that the LXX read 
pey. jS. ayyeXoq, but that some 
Copies have OtzvfAaa-Toq, avtA^ovXoq, 
&€oq ItT'yypoq, i^ovaiaarviq, ccp%oov el- 
p^vyjq, na,Tvip rov [AtXXcvToq aiuvoq. 

This remark is confirmed by a 
collation of existing MSS. 

E 2 



52 JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 



" denied him to be God., Son of the only unbegotten 
" and ineffable God V He then quotes Exodus 
vi. 2. Gen. xxxii. 24, 30. xviii. 2, 13, 16, 17. Numb, 
xi. 23. Deut. xxxi. 2, 3. as all making mention of 
Christ, and identifying him with God. 

35. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. 

He continues the same subject in the following 
chapter, and lays it down as a general rule, that 
wherever in the Old Testament God is said to have 
appeared, or to have conversed with any man, as in 
Gen. xvii. 22. xi. 5. and vii. 16. we are not to un- 
derstand that God the Father, who is invisible, came 
down to earth, but we are to interpret all these ex- 
pressions of " him who being also God is His Son 
" according to His will, and an Angel, inasmuch as 
" he ministers to His purpose ; whom He also willed 
" to become man and be born of a Virgin ; who also 
" once became fire in the conversation held with 
" Moses out of the bush. For unless we put this 
66 interpretation upon the scriptures, there will be 
" times when the Father and Lord of the universe 
" was not in heaven, as it is said by Moses, The 
" Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah 
" brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, 

" Gen. xix. 24. Now that Christ is Lord, and 

" substantially God the Son of God, and in times 
" past appeared potentially as a man, and an angel, 
" and in fiery glory, as he appeared in the bush, and 



z T/$ eariv oinoq o$ Kai ayye- 

"koq ^eyahqq /3ovAtj<; Kai ®eoq 

npo<TKW/)To<; KfiKhrfcai, Kai vloq 

®eov, el iyi/&K€LTe, ovk av ifi\a<r(py]- 
(AeTre elq avrov yl'/] Kai napayevo- 
y^evov, Kai yevv/jBevra, Kai naOoi/Ta, 



Kai avafiavra el<; tov ovpavoV — — 
enei el vevo'f]Kare ra elpv)[Aeva vico 
rZv Kpo(pv}Tcov, ovk av e^rjpveiaBe av- 
rov ewai Seov, rov povov Kai ayev- 
V'f\tov Kai apprjTQV &eov vlov. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 53 



" at the judgment of Sodom, has been proved by 
" many arguments a ." 

36. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 129. p. 222. 

He again notices the text, Gen. xix. 24. and 
argues from it thus : " When it is said, The Lord 
" rained fire from the Lord out of heaven, the 
ff sacred text speaks of two in number, one who was 
ff on earth, who, he says, came down to see the cry 
" of Sodom ; and the other, who was in heaven ; 
" who is also Lord of the Lord that was upon earth, 
" inasmuch as He is Father and God, and the cause 
" of existence to him who is himself mighty and 
" Lord and God b ." We must remember that when 
we read " the Lord rained fire from the Lord" 
Jehovah is the Hebrew word in each case; and 
Justin, like the other Fathers, supposes that the 
Jehovah mentioned in the beginning of the verse 
was Christ. Justin uses the same expression of the 
Father and the Son being two in number, or nu- 
merically, at p. 152, 221. His meaning was, that 
they are two distinct persons, and not two modes or 
energies of the same being. 
37. Justin. Epist. ad L>iognetum. c. 7- p. 237. 

Diognetus had asked Justin to solve some doubts 
and difficulties which he entertained concerning 
Christianity. In compliance with his request, Justin 



R 'AXX' £k€IV0V TOV KCCTO, fiovAYjV 

ty/v eKetvov Kai Seov ovra vlov ainov, 
koa dyyeXov in tov vnypeTeiv tSJ 
avrov' ov koa dvBpoiizov yevvy- 
Qv\vat tia. TYjq napBevov j3e(3ovAriTai. 

oq Kai nvp wore yeyove k. t. a. 

Kai on Kvpioq uv 6 Xpia-roq kcu ®ehq 
®€ov vloq vitdpyuv, kou hwdpei (pai- 
vofAevoq irporepov aq dvyp, kcu dyye- 
Aoq, Kai iv itvpoq So^rj dito^e- 



detKTai iv iroAAoTq roiq eip'rjfxevoiq, 

— hvo ovTaq dpiBi^Z [/.rjvvei 

6 Aoyoq o TvpoipyjTiKcq' tov [/.ev in) yr\q 
ovra, oq (jjvjo-i Kara(3e(3rjKevai ifciy 
tt)v Kpavy\v 2oSojm.&iv' tov iv To7q 
ovpavoiq vitdpyfiVTa" %q Ka) tov in) 
yyjq Kvpiov Kvpioq ianv, aq narvp 
Kat (deoq, a'moq re avra tov thai 
Ka\ tvvarw Ka) Kvpup Ka) ®e£>. 

E 3 



54 JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 

wrote this letter c : and speaking of the special re- 
velation of His will, which God had made to Chris- 
tians, he says, " This is no earthly invention which 
" has been handed down to them, neither is it a 
" mortal notion which they are bent upon observing 
" so carefully, nor have they a system of human 
" mysteries committed to them : but the omnipotent 
" and all-creative and invisible God hath Himself 
" from heaven established the truth amongst men, 
" and the holy and incomprehensible word, and 
" rooted it in their hearts : not, as you might sup- 
" pose, by sending to men any of His servants, either 
" an angel, or a prince, or one of those who ad- 
" minister the affairs of earth, or one of those who 
" have the management of heavenly things intrusted 
" to them, but the Framer and Creator of the universe 
" himself, by whom He created the heavens, by 
" whom He shut up the sea in its own bounds d ." 

We have here an express declaration that Jesus 
Christ was the Framer and Creator of the world. 
God created them by Jesus Christ, as is said in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 2. and if the words quoted 
above are not sufficiently strong to exclude the idea 
of God having employed any subordinate agent, we 
find in the very next chapter the expression of " God 

c I should mention, that some d aXX avroq 6 TravTOKpdrccp 

persons have doubted the au- kcu itawoKtla'T^q kcu dopocroq Seoq 

thenticity of it, though few the avroq a.% ovpavwv ttjj/ aXvjQeuw kou 
antiquity. Tillemont thought tov Xoyov tov aytov kcu a-cepmrirov ay- 
it was older than Justin, and OpcoKOiq ividpvrcu, kou eyKccTea-Trjp^e 
written before A. D. 70 ; Bara- Tociq KapYiouq avrav' ov, KaOunep av 
tier ascribed it to Clemens Ro- nq elKda-eiev, ctvOpunoiq vnvjpirvjv nva 
man us; Whiston to Timothy, ^e^ipccq, % ayyeXov,- — — ukX av- 
See Fabricius Bibl. Gr. V. p. 5 8. tov tov Te^ymjv kou fypiovpyov t£v 
Jortin's remarks on E. H. vol. I. okcov, 3> Tovq ovpavovq eKTicrev, a t\v 
p. 342, &c. Gallandius in Bi- OdKao-a-av loloiq opoiq iveKXeiaev. 
blioth. ascribes it to Apollos. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 55 



" the Lord and Creator of the universe, who made 
" all things and arranged them in order e ." Thus, 
according to Justin's own words, God created the 
world by His Son; and His Son, by whom He created 
them, was God. 

This passage suggests two remarks : 1. It con- 
firms our translation of Hebrews i. 2. " by whom 
'* also He made the worlds." li ol kou tov$ almag 
€7toiy)<t€v. The Improved Version translates this, 
" for whom also he constituted the ages," which 
perhaps does not convey any very distinct idea : and. 
Mr. Belsham, " with a view to whom he even con- 
" stituted the former dispensations^" Justin, it ap- 
pears, did not understand the passage thus : and 
when he says oo rovg ovpavovg eVn<7€i>, (h tyjv BaXaaaav, 
k. t. A. he clearly meant that Christ was the instru- 
mental and not the final cause. Irenaeus had the 
same notion, who says of Christ, per quern consti- 
tute omnia s ; and Clement of Alexandria, co rk ttolvtcc 
§€§Y)[uovpyriTou h ; and Tertullian, " tradidit omnia Filio 
" Creator quae per eum condidit \" We may add, 
that in John i. 3. and Col. i. 16. both the Improved 
Version and Mr. Belsham translate the preposition 
foot by and not for. In 1 Cor. viii. 6. the Improved 
Version translates it by, and Mr. Belsham through : 



e 'O tea-moTvjq Kcti hypiovpyoq rwv 
oXuv ®eo?, o not'/jcrat; roc ndvTa /cat 
Kara, TafiJ/ dioiKplvaq. p. 238. 

f The creation of the worlds 
would appear to be expressed 
still more plainly in Heb. xi. 3. 

nivzsi voovjxev KarriprlaQixi, rovq al- 
avaq p^fxari ®eou, elq to [M] Ik (pai- 
vojAevav roc fiXenoueva, yeyovivai. 

But Mr. Belsham translates the 
passage thus, " By faith we un- 
" derstand that the ages were 



" arranged by the power of God, 
" that so what is now seen did 
" not arise from things which 
" before appeared :" and he ex- 
plains the meaning to be, " By 
" faith we learn that the moral 
" dispensations of God to man- 
" kind have a supernatural ori- 
" gin." 

§ IV. 20. 4. p. 254. 

h Cohort, ad Gent. p. 7. 

' Adv. Marc. IV. 25. p. 440. 

E 4 



56 



JUSTIN MARTYR, AD. 150. 



and I may add, that in 1 Cor. xv. 21. where Mr. B. 
lays such stress on Jesus being called a mere man, 
his own reasoning would totally fail, if $ia did not 
signify the instrumental cause. With respect to 
Heb. i. 2. Mr. Belsham follows Grotius, who says, 
that h 9 ob is sometimes the same as h 3 ov. It would 
be satisfactory to have some instances of it. He re- 
fers us to Thucyd. VI. 7- ovirep irdvia eKiv^vvevov, 
"for whose sake they put every thing to hazard." 
The reference is wrong, for the words occur in the 
57th chapter, and nothing can be more absurd or 
mistaken than Mr. Belsham's translation of them. 
They refer to the person who was suspected by 
Harmodius and Aristogiton to have betrayed the 
conspiracy to Hippias : " they wished therefore first 
" to avenge themselves upon the man who had in- 
" jured them, km §i ovnep itavia eKivtovvevov, and through 
" whose treachery the whole plot was in clanger of 
"Jailing" He refers also to 1 Cor. xiv. 19. where 
he translates ha voog, 66 with a view to be understood :" 
but unless voog means in this place the understand- 
ing of the person who hears the words, which it 
evidently does not, this interpretation is absurd : it 
means the mind or understanding of the speaker: 
and Mr. Belsham may learn the use of the prepo- 
sition ha by observing, that Marcion, who altered 
this passage, as he did many others, read it thus, — 
BeXoo 7T€vt€ Xoyovg too vof [xov kakYi&ai §ia rov vofxov. Epi- 
phanius did not censure him for altering ha rov voog 
fxov to tco vol' fAov, for he knew the expressions to be 
equivalent, and he only reproves him for adding the 
words ha rov vo'[Aov k . Schleusner, to whom Mr. B. 



k Epiphan. Hasr. XLII. vol. I. p. 361-2. 



JUSTIN MARTYR,. A. D. 150. 



57 



refers, gives propter as one of the meanings of foot 
with a genitive : but it is plain from his examples, 
that he meant to use propter as denoting the in- 
strumental, not the final cause. Mr. Belsham's trans- 
lation of §t ol will appear still more extraordinary, 
if we turn to another passage in this same Epistle to 
the Hebrews, ii. 10. "E™ €7re yap avrto, §t ov rot Trdvra 
kou $i ol ra 7ravra . Here we have both con- 
structions of the preposition foot, and we can hardly 
think that St. Paul considered them as identical : 
nor did Mr. Belsham think them so in this place, 
where he translates fo' ol by whom, though in the 
former passage he contends that it ought to be ren- 
dered for whose sake. So also in Rom. xi. 36. where 
we read On e| avrov /cat §t avrov Kai elg avrov rot iravra, 
Mr. B. translates, For of him and through him and 
to him are all things. It appears therefore that 
wherever the expression is applied to God the Fa- 
ther, he considers foot to mean the instrumental 
cause; but when it is applied to the Son, he under- 
stands it as sometimes denoting the final cause, and 
sometimes the instrumental 1 . 

The instrumentality of the Son, in creating the 
world, has been expressed so clearly by many of the 
Fathers, beside the passages quoted above, that it 
seems quite useless to torture the words of the apo- 
stle to the Hebrews : thus Athenagoras says, irpog 
avrov Kai avrov Trdvra eyevero, kvog ovrog rov Ttarpog Ka) 
rov vlov. p. 287. Hippolytus says, li ov rot irdvra €7roi'v](T€v, 

1 Philo Judaeus may shew us dt ov Se to ipyakeiov' &' % Se, jj 

how the prepositions were used ahla. De Cherubim, vol. I. 

in his time: npo; Trjv nvoq yiveaiv p. 161-2. Eusebius, when illus- 

TtoKha. Se? <rvveX6e7v' to v(f> of, to e| trating John i. 3, says r} A;a npo- 

ov, to Si' ov, to Si' 0. Ktxl iari yXv decriq to vwqpeTiKov cr^f^alvei. Ec- 

to vcf> oi, to euTtW ef ov Se y v'Av)' cles. Theol. II. 14. p. 122. 



58 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



which according to Mr. Belsham would mean, C£ that 
" all things were made for the sake of Christ," a 
position which perhaps he would not be willing to 
allow. The council of Antioch, speaking of the Word, 
say, §i ov o TraTYjp 7ravra 7re7roiY]Kev, ov% a>g opyavov, ov$ 
w$ €7ri<jTYj^y]g avviroaraTov m , which cannot have any- 
possible meaning, if we adopt either the grammar or 
the doctrine of Mr. Belsham. Origen quotes Col. i. 
16. §i ov €KtioSy) ra iravra h roig ovpavoig kou eni ty)$ yrjs, 
eire opara, k. t. A n . where St. Paul wrote ev avrcp 
e/cTicrOv} ; and Origen's substitution of h* ov for ev S 
shews the meaning which he attached to the words. 
We may therefore conclude that St. Paul, unless all 
the Ante-Nicene Fathers misunderstood him, meant 
to say, that the Father and the Son together were en- 
gaged in creating the world : and yet we find God 
saying in Isaiah xliv. 24. lam the Lord that maketh 
all things ; thai stretcheth forth the heavens alone, 
that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself : a de- 
claration which can only be reconciled with the 
other, by supposing that the Father and the Son are 
one. 

2. The second remark which I have to make is, 
that Justin Martyr expressly calls the Son fypiovpyos 
toov okcov, Creator of the universe ; which is satisfac- 
tory, because a Socinian writer 0 has asserted, that 
" the titles of rov 7ravro$ 7toiyjty)$, and t&v okccv ^Yifxiovpyog, 
" were such as the writers of the second century 
" always distinguished the Father from the Son by." 
This is an unfounded statement. Many of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, beside Justin Martyr, have applied 

m Reliq. Sacr. II. p. 469. 0 Dr. Whitby. See Water- 

n In Jerem. Horn. XV. c. 6. land, II, p. 290. 
III. p. 226. 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150. 59 

this very title to the Son. Thus Irenaeus calls our 
Saviour, "the only-begotten Son of God, Maker of 
"all things p," and "Maker of the world i ;" and 
" the W ord of God, Framer and Creator and Maker 
" of all things r ; and he speaks " of the Son creat- 
" ing s ." Clement of Alexandria speaks of " the 
" Son in the Father, the Creator t ;" and says, that 
" the Son has boldness of speech, because he is God 
" and Creator u :" and again, " Such is the Word — 
" the Creator of the world and of man x ." At p. 593. 
he calls him " God the Creator y ;" and at p. 654. 
" the Word, the cause of Creation z ." Hippolytus 
calls him " the Creator of the universe a , and " the 
" Maker of all things b ." Gregory of Neocsesarea 
calls him " the Creator and Governor of all things c ." 
Lastly, Dionysius of Alexandria styles him " the 

P Tiov 0€ov [/.ovoyevyj tcuvtcov jr tS Svj/xioup'ys? Qea, tS 

-KOirjr^v. I. 9. 2. p. 44. KoChkiavn r,(Aai;, kou ziayyeXia-a- 

'3 KoV/xou ttoitjt'^v. ib. yiva iv (rayccri. Strom. IV. 8. 

r Tov tav navrav Kricnrjv kou z c O Aoyoq, tjt\yiuvpyicic, cc'iTioq. 

fyutovpyov kou itoirjTYiv Xoyov tov Strom. V. 3. 

Seov. I. 15. 5. p. 79. The term a c O ruv oXcov ^y.iovpyoq. c. Be- 
ktio-tvi:, which is here applied to ron. et Hel. vol. I. p. 230. 
Christ, is used by Athanasius b Tov navrav ktktt^v. In Theo- 
to express the person who phan. 2. vol. I. p. 262. 
creates matter out of nothing, c TS kocvtuv typiovpyS kou kv 
in opposition to Tey^hv^, or the fiepvqTi). Orat. Panegyr. in Orig. 
person who only employs pre- c. 4. This is the only quota- 
existent matter. De Incarn. 2. tion which I shall make from 
vol. I. p. 49. this Father, it being very doubt- 

s Tov vlov faijAiovpyovmoq. IV. 38. ful whether the other works 

3. p. 285. ascribed to him are genuine. 

1 Ayyuovpyov vlov iv <rcaxpL Psed. He flourished about the year 

I. 8. p. 142. see also N°. 69. 240 ; and this quotation alone 

u nappyjcia oe, on @eoq kou would make it highly improba- 

ty[Movpyo<;. Peed. I. 11. p. 156. ble that he called Jesus Christ 

x Toowto? 0 Koyoq 0 rov a creature, made, as Mr. Lind- 

Koa-jxov kou tov avOpavov Ir^iovpyoq. sey tells us that he did not he- 

Peed. III. c. ult. p. 310. sitate to do. (Apology, p. 204.) 



60 



JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D. 150. 



" uncreated and Creator A " and " Creator together 
" with his Father e ." 

I have perhaps brought more instances than what 
were necessary to prove the doctrine of the Fathers 
upon this point ; but since Mr. Belsham f and the 
modern Unitarians assert so positively, that the scrip- 
tures say nothing about the world being created by 
Christ, it becomes important to see what was the 
interpretation given to scripture by those writers, 
who were more likely than ourselves to preserve 
the doctrine of the apostles. But after all, if we 
may take Dr. Priestley as speaking the acknow- 
ledged sentiments of Unitarians, it is in vain to 
argue with them upon this point from the writings 
of the Fathers, or even of the New Testament : for 
he says, " I do not see that we are under any obliga- 
" tion to believe it (the doctrine of Christ having 
" made the world) merely because it was an opinion 
" held by an apostle s." Surely Dr. Priestle} r , when 
he wrote this sentence, was well convinced that there 
was an apostle who had maintained such a doctrine. 
J would also remind the followers of Dr. Priestley, 
that the Arians applied the title of Creator to Christ 
as unequivocally as their opponents. The Arians, it 
is true, believed Christ to be a creature ; but then 
they always added that he was not like the other 
creatures : thus in their longer Confession of faith 
they say, " We conceive him to have been made, not 
" in the same manner with the creatures or produc- 

d Toy aKTto-Tov kou hyfuovpyov. f Calm Inquiry, p. 177, &c 
P. 212. s History of early Opinions, 

e 2vvhv}[/.iovpyw t£> mar pi. P. I. p. 63. 
244. 



TATIAN, A. D. 165. 



61 



" tions which were made by him : for it is impious 
" and far removed from the ecclesiastical faith to 
" compare the Creator with the works created by 
" him h ." At the beginning ofthis Confession they 
applied the same term at/ctt^, Creator to God the 
Father. 

38. Justin. Epist. ad Diognet. c. 11. p. 240. 

Justin's words are equally strong for the eternal 
duration of the Son, when he speaks of him in this 
same Epistle, as " he who was from the beginning 

" who existeth for ever, in these latter days ac- 

" counted a Son '." 

Tatian. A.D. 165. 
This writer was a native of Assyria, and is said 
to have been converted to Christianity by reading 
the books of the Old Testament ; but the precise 
time of his conversion is not known. Irenaeus, who 
was his contemporary, says k , that he had been a 
disciple of Justin Martyr, and that during Justin's 
life his opinions were perfectly sound ; but after the 
death of that martyr, (which happened about the 
year 168,) he adopted many strange and heretical 
opinions. The same is said by Epiphanius \ The 
sect of the Encratites claimed him as one of their 
principal supporters m ; and he is supposed to have 
adopted in part the heresies of Marcion and Valen- 

h Oi>x o/Aoicci; avrov roiq St' avrov 1 Ovroq b an ap%'^, b Kaivoq (pa- 

yevopivoiq Krlo-{xa<riv rj nGi'fjjAaoi ye- ve)<; ovroq b ae), o-/j[Aepov vlo$ Xo- 

yevyjo-6ai voov^ev' aaefteq yap /cat yioSelq. The text is deficient ID 

eKKXy)Ttao-Ta<vjt; nlareuq ahko- this place. 
rptov, to rov KTt<rrrjv ro7q St' avrov k I. 28. p. 107. 
K€KTio-[Aevoiq§rj[Aiovpyr i [A.a<TiTtccpa(3aA- 1 Haer. XL VI. vol. I. p. 39 1. 

Xetf. Ath. de Synodis. vol. I. m Epiphan. 1. c. 
p. 741. 



62 



ATHENAGOHAS, A. D. 170. 



tinus n . This however does not affect the authority 
of the only work which has come down to us from 
him, and which was certainly written before he had 
any heretical opinions ° : to which I may add, that 
the heresies which he adopted were the very oppo- 
site of those which maintain the simple humanity of 
Jesus. He in fact became heretical, by carrying the 
notion of Christ's divinity too far, and not allowing 
him to have had a human nature p. 

The work which has survived is an Oration di- 
rected against the superstitions of the heathen, and, 
according to Lardner, was written about the year 
165. Eusebius informs <i us that he wrote many 
books, but all the rest are lost : he also says, that 
Tatian spoke of Christ as God. V. 28. 

39. Tatian. Orat. c. Grcecos. c. 13. p. 255. 
The opinion, which Tatian held concerning the 

divine nature of Christ, could not be more plainly 
expressed than by his calling the Spirit "the min- 
" ister of God who suffered 1 :" in which passage 
God must be referred to Christ, who suffered in 
his human nature. 

40. Tatian. Orat. c. Grcecos. c. 21. p. 262. 
Nor is the following passage less express ; — " We 

" are not talking foolishly, nor do we relate idle 
66 tales, when we declare that God was born in the 
" form of man s ." 

Athenagoras. A. D. 170. 
Little is known of this Father, except that he was 

n Theodoret. Hser. Fab. I. <J IV. 29. 
20. vol. IV. p. 208. r Tov 

0 Eusebius, in his Chronicle, ®eov. 
says, that his heresy began s Oi5 yap [Aapafoopev, ovhe Xypovq 

about the year 172. ai:ayyeXko^v, ®elv iv avBpuitov 

P Vid. Theodoret. ut supra. pop^y yeyovevai KatayyiKhwr^. 



MELITO, A.D. 175. 



63 



converted to Christianity by reading the scriptures, 
and that he flourished under the reigns of Hadrian 
and Antoninus Pius. He is also said to have been 
the master of Clement of Alexandria. 

Only one of his works has come down to us, an 
Apology, or Defence* of Christianity, which, in the 
opinion of some critics, was presented to M. Aur. 
Antoninus and L. Aur. Com modus ; while others 
think that it was presented to M. Antoninus and 
L. Verus. These two opinions naturally cause a 
difference as to its probable date. Some assign it 
to the year 166 ; others, with whom Lardner agrees, 
to 177 or 178. There is no writer in the second 
century, who has left such express declarations of a 
belief in a Trinity, as Athenagoras: but at present I 
shall only quote from him one passage, which speaks 
of the divinity of the Son. 

41. Athenag. JLegat.pro Christianis. c.30. p. 308. 

Having before noticed the charge brought against 
the Christians of being atheists, Athenagoras uses 
these remarkable words ; " That we are not atheists, 
" since we consider as God the Creator of this uni- 
" verse, and the Word, which is of Him, has been 
" proved, if not suitably to the subject, at least to 
" the utmost of my power V By every rule of 
grammar and of sense we must refer the word Qeov, 
God, both to the Creator of the universe and to the 
Word. Athenagoras says, that Christians believed 
in both, but he speaks of them in the singular num- 
ber, as God. 

Melito. A.D. 175. 
Melito was bishop of Sardes in Asia, and pre- 

* e n$ [/.ev ovv qvk ia-fAev adeoi, tcclvtoc, kou tov nap ai/TOv Aoyov 
Sew ayovreq tov itoiyTyv rovbe tov i'kqXeyKTai. 



64 



MELITO, A. D. 175. 



sented an Apology to the emperor M. Antoninus. 
Cave considers him to have flourished about the 
year 170, Lardner in 177. A catalogue of his works 
may be seen in Eusebius u : but nothing has come 
down to us except a few fragments, which are col- 
lected by Dr. Routh in his Reliquiae Sacrae. These 
fragments will perhaps be thought to confirm the 
impression which they had produced upon the mind 
of Eusebius x , who asks, " Who is ignorant of the 
66 books of Irenaeus and Melito, which declare Christ 
" to be God and man ?" 

Jerom as well as Eusebius mention a book to 
have been written by him, which was entitled, lie/?/ 
evaccfxarov Seov. We might naturally have considered 
this work to have treated of the incarnation of 
Christ ; but some writers have charged Melito with 
heresy in the composition of this book, supposing 
him to have maintained the notion that God had a 
body such as we have. Coteler y, Grabe z , and Beau- 
sobre a are of this opinion, whose authority I do not 
venture to question : but it may be mentioned, that 
Anastasius Sinaita, a writer of the sixth century, has 
given an extract from a work of Melito, called Hepi 
vapKooG-eoos Xpiarov, which contains, as will be seen, 
the most unequivocal assertions of the divinity of 
Christ. The writers above named did not however 
think that the work entitled Hep) ha^arov Seov, and 
that Hep) aapKooa-ecog XpiaTov, were the same. 
42. Melito ex Apol (Bel. Sacr. vol. I. p. 112.) 

" We are not worshippers of senseless stones, but 
" of the only God, who was before all things, and is 

11 IV. 26. x V. 28. a Hist, de Manichee. vol. I. 

y Clem. Horn. XVII. p. 738. p. 474. 
z Annotatain Bull. Def. II. 5. 



MELITO, A. D. 175. 



65 



" above all things : and also of his Christ, who was 
" verily God, the Word, before the worlds b ." It 
may be said, that I have not translated these words 
fairly, and that Qeov Aoyov means the word of God, 
and not God the Word. It is however only neces- 
sary to read the Fathers, to be convinced that these 
words can have but one meaning, which is to give 
the appellation of God to the Word. We find in a 
multiplicity of instances Seo$ Aoyog, to> @e<o Ao'ya>, tov 
Beov Aoyov, where there is no room for a difference of 
interpretation : and though I would not contend 
that Beov Aoyov cannot signify the word of God, it is 
surely not too much to say, that the position of the 
Greek words, standing as they do without any ar- 
ticle, requires us to translate them as I have done. 
I consider them as equivalent to God who was the 
Word, or the Word who was God, for the idiom 
of our language compels us to add something to the 
simplicity of the Greek ; and, according to our form 
of expression, they contain a plainer and fuller asser- 
tion of Christ's divinity than the more usual expres- 
sion, which calls Christ the Word of God. 

It has often been shewn, that the Logos, or 
Word, was understood by the Jews and Gentiles, as 
well as by Christians, to mean, not something created 
by God, and distinct from Him, but a coexistent and 
consubstantial emanation from the Deity c ; so that 

b Ow< ea-^h XiBav ovleplav at- forming those acts of interpo- 

aO'/jo-iv exovrav BepanevTa,), aXXa sition in human affairs, which 

[xivov ®eov, tov vpo kuvt&qv kou e7rt iii the Old Testament are as- 

Trai/T^'V kou ert tov Xpi<nov ai/rov, cribed to God. This is ob- 

oi/TGoq ®eov Aoyov upb -ulavav, l<r^v served by bishop Bull, Defens. 

Bpr\(TKex>Tal. I. I. 16, &c. : and many in- 

c Philo Judaeus often speaks stances are given by Townsend 

of the Logos, or Word, per- in his Arrangement of the New 



66 



MELITO, A.D.175. 



when Christ was called the Word of God, the ex- 
pression conveyed a more intelligible notion of his 
divinity in those early times than it does now. The 
Christians of those days had as full a notion of 
Christ being God, when they called him 6 Aoyog tov 
Beov, the Word of God, as when they called him o 
Qeog Aoyog, God the Word, or the Word who was 
God: but it is perhaps more satisfactory to us, as 
it is certainly more intelligible, to find the Fathers 
constantly applying to Jesus Christ the above ex- 
pression o Seog Aoyog, God the Word, which it may 
be remembered is precisely what we read in the 
Gospel itself, where St. J ohn says, the Word was 
God. 

I have only one more remark to make upon the 
words of Melito, which is, that he expressly says 
that the Christians worshipped Christ, and yet he 
says that they worshipped only one God : which 
two assertions can only be reconciled by our con- 
cluding, that the unity of that Godhead which they 
worshipped, comprehended the Son as well as the 
Father. 

43. Melito ex I. de Incarn. Christi. (Bel. Sacr. 
vol. I. p. 115.) 
Whatever doubts may be entertained concerning 
the proper translation of the last passage, there can 
be no question whatever as to the doctrine which is 
contained in the example now to be produced. " To 
" those persons, who have any sense, there is no ne- 
" cessity to prove, from the actions performed by 

Testament, I. p. to. Tertullian creation of the world to a Lo- 
also tells the heathen, that their gos. Apol. c. 21. p. 19. See 
philosophers had ascribed the Lactantius, Instit. IV. 9. 



MELITO, A. D. 175. 



67 



" Christ after his baptism, that he had a real and 
" not apparent soul and body, a human nature such 
" as ours d . For the actions performed by Christ after 
" his baptism, and particularly the miracles, shewed 
" and demonstrated to the world his divinity which 
" was hidden in the flesh. For he, being at once 
" perfect God and man, has demonstrated his two 
" substances to us ; his divinity, by the miracles 
" worked in the three years which followed his bap- 
" tism ; and his humanity, in the thirty years which 
" preceded his baptism : during which period, owing 
" to the imperfection which he had from the flesh, 
" the signs of his divinity were hidden, although he 
" was very God existing before the worlds e ." 
44. Melito ex I. de Passione. (Rel. Sac?\ vol. I. 
p. 116.) 

The same conclusion may be drawn from another 
expression of Melito, where he says, that " God suf- 
" fered by the right hand of Israel f ." These words 
can only allude to the sufferings, which Jesus Christ 
experienced from the children of Israel. The man- 
ner in which they are quoted by Anastasius shews 
that Melito was speaking of Christ, and they there- 
fore prove to us that Melito considered Christ to be 
God. 



d This work was written 
against Marcion, who believed 
that Christ had only an appa- 
rent body. 

e Ta yap [xera to ^dTiTiT^a vtto 
'Kpitrrov Ttpa^Bevra. kou [AaKiara 
to. a-fjiAeia, rrjv avrov KeKpvfA/Aevqv 
iv (TotpKi Qeoryra ifyXovv, kou eVi- 

(TTOVVTQ T$j K0<Tp,K. ®€Qq ydp WV 

Ofiov re kou avOpuiroq reXeioq o avroq, 
raq Svo avrov ovcriaq iniTTcoo-aro 



Yj[Mv' rrjv [xev Seoryra avrov dia 
rav (T^[A€tuv iv rfj rpieria rfj pera 
to fiocKT tar^a, rrjv avQpaicor'fjra 
avrov, iv ro7q rpiocKovra ^povoiq ro7q 
icpo rov (3airri<T[Aaro<;' iv olq bid to 
dreXeq to Kara crdpKa aTceKpvfi'q roc. 
<TYj[Ae7a ryq avrov ®€OTf\roq' Kaintp 
®eoq aXydyiq npoaiavioq VTtapyjjov. 

f e O ®eoq nenovdev vtiq defclaq 
'leparfkhtboq. 

F 2 



68 



IREN/EUS, A.D. 185. 



Irenaeus. A. D. 185. 

Irenaeus is supposed to have been a native of 
Asia ; and he himself tells us p , that in his younger 
days he had seen Polycarp, who had been appointed 
to the bishopric of Smyrna by the apostles, and who 
had conversed with many persons who had seen 
Christ h . Polycarp suffered martyrdom about the year 
166. It is probable therefore that Irenaeus was born 
about the year 140, though some writers place his 
birth many years earlier. We are not informed what 
was the cause which brought him from Asia into 
Gaul ; but we know that when Pothinus, bishop of 
Lyons, was martyred in the year 177, Irenaeus was 
chosen to succeed him. The latest date assigned to 
his death is the year 202 ; and there is no reason to 
think that he suffered martyrdom. 

Some of his writings are mentioned by Eusebius', 
but the only one which has come down to us is his 
Work against Heresies, in five books. It was writ- 
ten in Greek, but we have only a translation in ra- 
ther barbarous Latin, which is supposed to be as old 
as the second century. In a few places fragments 
of the original Greek have been preserved. Some 
writers have supposed that these five books against 
Heresies were written in the year 176; others bring 
down the composition of them to 192. 

Irenaeus having seen Polycarp, who was an im- 



g III. 3. 4. p. 176. Fragm. 
P-339- 

h It was the opinion of Usher, 
that Polycarp was the angel or 
bishop of the church of Smyrna, 
addressed in the Revelations ii. 



8, and he must have been so, if 
he was appointed by the apo- 
stles, i. e. by some one or more 
of the apostles who then sur- 
vived. 
1 V. 20. 



IREN^US, A. D. 185. 



69 



mediate disciple of St. John, and having left a work 
of such extent, and full of such varied information 
on doctrinal points, it becomes of great importance 
that we should ascertain his real sentiments concern- 
ing our Lord's divinity. The testimonies produced 
from hiui are consequently more numerous than 
those cited from any of the preceding Fathers. Eu- 
sebius, as already quoted, mentioned Xrenaeus among 
the writers who spoke of Christ as God : but a So- 
cinian writer k asserts positively, that " he was cer- 
" tainly ignorant of the two natures in Christ." The 
truth or falsehood of this assertion may be tried by 
the following quotations. 

In many passages of his work, Irenaeus has shewn 
that it was customary in his day, as it had been 
before, to draw up short creeds or confessions of 
faith. He mentions that they were recited at bap- 
tism : and though in some he only expresses the be- 
lief in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth, 
it is plain from other instances, that these creeds 
also contained the name of the Son and the Holy 
Ghost. 

Thus he speaks of people being driven from the 
truth " who do not hold firm the belief in one God 
" the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ 
" the Son of God 1 :" and having mentioned " the 
" invariable rule of truth which a person received 
" at baptism m ," and " the certain truth which was 

k Lindsey, Apology, p. 204. raq. I. 3, 6. p. 18. 

note. m c O rov Kctvova rvjq cWrfieiaq 

1 rovq [M] ehpcciav rvjv tt/- SckKiv^ ev lavra Kare^ccv, ov §ia rov 

ariv ei? eva @eoi/ itarepa, iravroKpu- j3amlo~[AccTo<; etXvj^e .... I. Q, 4. 
Topa, Kai elq eva Kvpiov 'lyo-ovv Xpi- p. 46. 
<rrov rov vtov rov Seov fiicccpv'ka.o-aov- 

F 3 



70 



IRENiEUS, A. D. 185. 



" preached by the church n ," he goes on to say, 
" The church, although dispersed through the whole 
" world, even to the ends of the earth, has received 
" from the apostles 0 and their disciples the belief in 
" one God, the Father Almighty, who made the 
" heaven and the earth, and the sea, and all things 
" therein ; and in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who 
" was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy 
" Ghost, who proclaimed by the prophets the incar- 
" nation p, and the coming, and the birth from a 
« virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection 
" from the dead, and the incarnate ascension into 
" heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and 
" his coming from heaven in the glory of the Fa- 



n ~Be[3cx,ia.i> tvjv vita ttjs eKKkfialaq 
Kfipv<T<roiA.ivfiv aXyjOeiav. I. 9> 5* 
p. 47. 

0 Dr. Priestley (History of 
early Opinions, I. p. 306.) 
translates this — the churches 
planted by the apostles, which is 
a manifest inaccuracy, and would 
mislead the English reader, who 
might not think that Irenseus 
asserted this creed to have been 
handed down from the apostles. 

p I have translated olKovopiat; 
incarnation, which is the sense 
in which all the Fathers used 
the word. This is fully proved 
by Bull, (Defens. IV. 3, 12. 
and Animadv. in G. Clerke,) 
also by Waterland, (II. p. 296, 
&c.) St. Paul himself may have 
led the way to this meaning 
of the term by his use of it 
in Ephes. i. 10. If any per- 
son should still doubt, I would 
refer him to the examples col- 
lected in Suicer's Thesaurus. 



Of four meanings, which he 
gives to the word, he states the 
third to be Ipsa Christi ivav- 
dpaiT'/ja-igy sive naturae humance 
assumptio : after which he says 
— iv. tandem oIkovo^io, non tan- 
turn incarnationis, sed etiam to- 
tius redemptions mysterium, et 
passionis Christi sacramentum 
denotat. I would rather have 
put the fourth signification be- 
fore the third : oiKovofxla seems 
very naturally to mean totius 
redemptionis mysterium, i. e. the 
whole economy or scheme pur- 
sued by God in perfecting our 
redemption : and of this the in- 
carnation of his Son formed a 
part. The word will generally 
be translated incarnation in the 
following pages. See N°. 161. 
The Benedictine editor of Atha- 
nasius has strangely misunder- 
stood and mistranslated the 
words KO.T oIkovoimixv in vol. I. p. 
247. §. 6. 



IREN^EUS, A. D. 185. 



71 



" ther that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God 

" and Saviour and King, according to the pleasure 
" of the invisible Father, every knee may bow V' 



In another place he speaks of "holding the rule 
" of the truth, which is, that there is one God, Al- 
" mighty, who created all things by his Word r ." At 
p. 176. he speaks of the faith which Clement of 
Rome held, as taught by the apostles, a belief in 
" one God, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth — 
" who was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ s ." 
In the next chapter he speaks of distant nations 
" carefully observing the old tradition, believing in 
" one God, maker of heaven and earth, and of all 
" things therein, by Christ Jesus, the Son of God : 
" who, from his great love toward his creation, sub- 
" mitted to be born of a virgin, himself by himself 
" uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius 
" Pilate, and rose again, and was received into 
" glory, who is to come in glory, the Saviour of 



&c. 





s annuntiantem unum 

Deum Omnipotentem, factorem 
coeli et terras Patrem Do- 
mini nostri Jesu Christi. III. 3, 
3- 



r Cum teneamus autem nos 
regulam veritatis, id est, quia 
sit unus Deus Omnipotens, qui 
omnia condidit per Verbum 
suum. I. 22. p. 98. 



F 4 



72 



IREN.EUS, A.D. 185. 



" those who are saved, and the Judge of those who 
" are judged t ," &c. In another place he speaks of 
the true belief being " in one God Almighty, of 
" whom are all things, and in the Son of God, Jesus 
" Christ our Lord, by whom are all things u : and 
" his incarnation, by which the Son of God became 

" man and in the Holy Ghost," &c. This he 

calls " true knowledge, the doctrine of the apostles, 
" and the original form of the church throughout 
" the world x ." 

After reading these different passages, there can 
surely be no doubt but that in the days of Irenaeus, 
and, according to him, from the time of the apo- 
stles, the creeds contained the same doctrine with 
that which we call the Apostles' Creed, a belief in 
God the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ His Son 
our Lord, and in the Holy Ghost. We may also 
compare the creeds of Irenseus with that of Hippo- 
lytus, who was one of his hearers, and in his work 
against Noetus has the following passage : " We 
" truly acknowledge one God ; we acknowledge 
" Christ ; we acknowledge the Son, who suffered, 
" &c. who died, &c. and rose on the third day, and 
" is on the right hand of the Father, and cometh to 



x in unum Deum ere- 

dentes fabricatorem coeli et ter- 
rae, et omnium quae in eis sunt, 
per Christum Jesum Dei Fi- 
lium : qui propter eminentissi- 
raam erga figmentum suum di- 
lectionem, earn quae esset ex 
Virgine generationem sustinuit, 
ipse per se hominem adunans 
Deo, et passus sub Pontio Pi- 
lato, et resurgens, et in claritate 
receptus, in gloria venturus Sal- 



vator eorum qui salvantur, et 
Judex eorum qui judicantur. 
III. 4, 2. p. 178. 
11 See 1 Cor. viii. 6. 

x E<? IW &eov TravTOKpctTopcc, efj 
ov tcc iravra, ntcniq oXoKX'/jpot;' kou 
€i$ tov vlov tov ®eov 'Irjarovv Xp<- 

(TTOV, TOV KvpiOV Tjf^Sv, Si' OV T« 

Trdvra,, kou tolc, olKOVO^'iaq avrov, St' 
&v av8pano<; iyevero 6 vloq tov ®eov, 
neio-iAOi/rj (3e(3a,ioc' K<xi tlq to Hyev^cc 

TOV ®€0V IV. 33, 7. p. 272 # 



IREN^US, A.D. 185. 



73 



"judge the quick and dead?." This is an evident 
allusion to some settled and prescribed form z . 

The Unitarians, we know, object to the use of 
the Apostles' Creed ; but I would ask them, does 
this creed go further in asserting our Lord's divi- 
nity than the creeds of Irenaeus ? Do not the creeds 
of Irenaeus expressly say that Jesus Christ was born 
of a Virgin a ? And do not the Unitarians them- 
selves conceive that this miraculous birth proves him 
to be more than man ? I ask them lastly, Will the 
Unitarians join in reciting the creeds of Irenaeus? 
if they do, they confess that Jesus Christ is more 
than man : if they will not, how can they say that 



akriBaq. oltob^ev XpicrroV o'feauev tou 
vllv -naQovra, KaQuq eitccOev, ccicoBa,- 
vqvtoc KaOuq stneOavev, Kai ccva<na.vrcx, 
T?J Tpirrj YjfAepa, Kai ovra iv 8e£ia tov 
Ylarpoq, koc) tpy j oy.evov Kp7vai ^avraq 
Kai veKpovq, I . vol. II. p. 6. 

z The reader may also com- 
pare the creeds given by Ter- 
tullian, N°. 133. and by Ori- 
gen, N°. 259. 

a We could hardly suppose 
Dr. Priestley to be serious when 
he says of this expression/' Even 
" this might not be intended to 
" describe the birth of Christ in 
" such a manner as to exclude 
" those who thought it natural, 
" so much as to assert that he 
" was really and properly horny 
" in opposition to those Gnos- 
" tics who said that he was not 
" properly born, as he took no- 
" thing from his mother." (His- 
tory of early Opinions. I. p. 
310.) It would seem as if 
Irenaeus had purposely written 
to refute this assertion : for, 



after having proved that Jesus 
was born of a Virgin, he pro- 
ceeds (III. 22.) to consider an- 
other opinion, of those who say, 
" that he took nothing from the 
" Virgin," [A-fiev elX'/jcpevat e'/c 1% 
irapBevov. If the miraculous con- 
ception of Christ was not an ar- 
ticle of belief in the days of Ire- 
naeus, as Dr. P. would insinuate, 
that Father could not have 
chosen any form of words more 
likely to mislead his readers. 
In another place Dr. P. would 
persuade us, that what Irenaeus 
says of the miraculous concep- 
tion was inserted by himself, 
and that it did not form a part 
of the creed then used. (IV. p. 
91.) This is entirely an as- 
sumption, and totally inconsist- 
ent with the words of Irenaeus. 
The twenty-first chapter of the 
third book of Irenaeus is exclu- 
sively occupied in proving that 
Jesus was born of a Virgin, and 
not begotten by Joseph. 



74 



IREN^EUS, A.D.185. 



the Fathers of the three first centuries were Unita- 
rians ? 

It is not the object of the present work to shew 
that baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, or a profession of faith in the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, necessarily 
implies the divinity of the second and third Persons 
as well as of the first. This subject has ofte*n been 
handled by the ablest writers ; and the point has 
been proved irresistibly by bishop Bull b and Dr. 
Waterland c . I do not presume to attempt to add 
any thing to their demonstrations ; but, confining 
myself to the testimony which Irenaeus bears to our 
Lord's divinity, I have laid before the reader the 
creeds which he gives as universally professed in his 
time : and I must observe particularly, that he ex- 
pressly calls Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Sa- 
viour and King. 

In many other places Irenaeus calls Christ God, 
without ever hinting that he used the term in an 
inferior or figurative sense : and whenever the reader 
finds our Saviour called God in the quotations made 
from this Father, I should wish him also to bear in 
mind the following passages, in which Irenaeus ex- 
plicitly asserts his belief in only one God. " Neither 
" would his disciples give to any other person the 
" name of God, or call him Lord, except him, who 
" was truly God and Lord of all d ." " Neither the 
" prophets nor apostles have named any other God, 



b Judicium Ecclesiae Catho- quemdam Deum nominarent, 

licae. aut Dominum vocarent, prseter 

c Eighth Sermon, III. p. 1 72. eum, qui vere esset Deus et 

&c. Dominus omnium. III. 5, 1. p. 

d Neque discipuli ejus alium 179. 



IRENiEUS, A.D. 185. 



75 



" or called any one else Lord, except the true and 
" only God e ." 66 Neither the Lord, nor the Holy 
" Ghost, nor the apostles, would ever have given to 
66 him, who was not God, the name of God defini- 
" tively and absolutely, if he had not been really 
" God f ." " He who has any one superior to him- 
" self, and is under the power of another, can nei- 
" ther be called God nor mighty King C 

I would ask, after these express declarations, how 
could Irenaeus possibly give to Christ the title of 
God, unless he thought Him substantially and es- 
sentially united to Him, whom he acknowledges as 
the only God ? I would observe also, that Irenaeus 
expressly says, what indeed appears a self-evident 
truth, that "what is begotten by God is God h ." 
We may conceive God to create substances wholly 
heterogeneous from Himself : but Irenaeus could not 
conceive God to beget a Son, however incomprehen- 
sible the mode of generation may be, unless that 
Son is also God. We should bear this in mind, 
when in the creeds quoted above, or in any other 
part of his writings, Irenaeus speaks of Christ as the 
Son of God. He thought that such an expression 
necessarily implied the divinity of the Son. 

46. Irencei 1. 2. c. 13. §. 8. p. 132. 

Speaking of the absurd doctrines of some of the 

e Nunquani neque prophetse, nisi esset vere Deus. III. 6. p. 

neque apostoli alium Deum no- 180. 

minaverunt, vel Dominum ap- s Qui super se habet aliquem 

peliaverunt, prseter verum et so- superiorem, et sub alterius po- 

lum Deum. III. 8. p. 182. testate est, hie neque Deus, ne- 

f Neque igitur Dominus, ne- que magnus Rex dici potest, 

que Spiritus Sanctus, neque IV. 2, 5. p. 229. 

apostoli eum, qui non esset h To Ik ®eo£ yevvtfev ©e&s ia-riv. 

Deus, definitive et absolute I. 8. p. 41. 
Deum nominassent aliquando, 



76 IREN^US, A.D. 185. 

Gnostics, he says, that yet " they are more decent 
u than those who transfer the generation of the 
" word which men produce to the eternal Word of 
" God, making a beginning and creation of the pro- 
" duction, as they do of a word of their own. But, 
" if so, in what will the Word of God, or rather God 
66 Himself, since He is the Word, differ from the 
" word of men, if he is generated in the same order 
" and process » ?" This is evidently directed against 
those persons who believed Christ not to be a sub- 
stantially existing person, but a mere quality or 
emanation of the Father. 

47. Irencei 1. 2. c. 25. §. S. p. 153. 
Having observed that we must not expect to dis- 
cover the causes of all things, since man must ever 
remain inferior to his Maker both in nature and in 
knowledge, he breaks out into this remarkable testi- 
mony to the divinity of Christ : " For thou art not 
" uncreated, O man, nor didst thou always exist to- 
" gether with God, like His own Word : but through 
" His great goodness thou now receivest the begin - 
" ning of thy creation, and learnest gradually from 
" His Word the ordinances of God, who made thee k ." 
The quotation which precedes this, shews, that when 
Irenseus called Christ the Word of God, he did not 
understand him to be merely an operation of the 

\ Decentiora autem magis ordinationem et emissionem ge- 

quam hi, qui generationem pro- nerationis ? 
lativi hominum verbi transfe- k Non enim infectus es, O 

runt in Dei seternum Verbum, homo, neque semper coexiste- 

et prolationis initium donantes bas Deo, sicut proprium ejus 

et genesin, quemadmodum et Verbum : sed propter eminen- 

suo verbo. Et in quo distabit tern bonitatem ejus, nunc ini- 

Dei Verbum, immo magis ipse tium facturae accipiens sensim 

Deus, cum sit Verbum, a verbo discis a Verbo dispositiones Dei, 

hominum, si eandem habuerit qui te fecit. 



IRENyEUS, A.D. 185. 



77 



mind or will of God, but he conceived him to have 
a personal and substantial existence. In the present 
passage he shews what sort of existence that was, 
viz. an eternal coexistence with God. The next 
quotation asserts the same thing. 

48. Irencei 1. 2. c. 30. |. ult. p. 163. 

" The Son, who always coexisted with the Father, 
" in times past and from the beginning, always re- 
" veals the Father both to angels and archangels, 
66 and to principalities and powers, and to all to 
" whom he wishes to reveal 1 ." See also N°. 57. 
49. Irencei 1. 3. c. 6. §. 1. p. 180. 

In this chapter Irenaeus argues, that whenever 
the- scriptures speak of God without any qualifying 
or restrictive epithet, they mean the one true God, 
and that they speak in this manner only of God the 
Father and God the Son, who are therefore the only 
one true God. His words are these ; — " Neither the 
" Lord therefore, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the apo- 
" sties, would ever have given to him who was not 
u God, the name of God definitively and absolutely, 
" unless he were truly God : neither woujd they 
" have called any one Lord in his own person, ex- 
" cept him who is Lord over all, God the Father, 
" and His Son, who has received from his Father 
" authority over every creature, as the Psalmist says, 
" ex. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at 
" my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy 
"footstool. For he represents the Father speaking 
66 to the Son ; who has given him the Gentiles for 
" his inheritance, and subjected all his enemies unto 
" him. Since therefore the Father is truly Lord, 

1 Semper autem coexistens semper revelat Patrem et an- 
Filius Patri olim et ab initio gelis &c. &c. 



78 



IRENiEUS, A.D. 185. 



" and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Ghost has suit- 
" ably marked them with the appellation of Lord. 
" And again, in the overthrowing of Sodom a the 
" scripture says, (Gen. xix. 24.) And the Lord 
" rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and 
" brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For it 
" signifies in this place, that the Son, who had also 
" been conversing with Abraham, had received 
" power from the Father to judge the people of 
" Sodom on account of their iniquity. That is a 
" similar expression, Thy throne, O God, is for 
(S ever : the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right 
" sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and 
" hated wickedness ; therefore God, thy God, hath 
" anointed- thee m . For the Spirit has marked each 
" with the appellation of God, both him who is 
" anointed, i. e. the Son, and Him who anoints, i. e. 
" the Father. And again, God standeth in the con- 
« gregation of the gods ; He judgeth among the 
" gods n . This is spoken of the Father and the Son, 
" and of those who have received adoption ; and 
" these^are the church. For this is the congrega- 
" tion of God, which God, i. e. the Son himself, has 
" gathered together by himself. Of whom the Psalm- 
" ist says in another place, LI. The God of gods, 
" the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth. 
" What God ? He of whom it is said, God shall 
" manifestly come, our God, and shall not keep si- 
" lence, (ver. 3.) i. e. the Son, who came manifestly 
" amongst men, who says, / have appeared openly 
" unto them which seek me not °. But of what God 
" [does the Psalmist speak,] to whom he says, / 



Psalm xlv. 6. 11 Psalm lxxxii. i. 0 Isaiah lxv. i. 



IRENjEUS, A.D. 185. 



79 



" have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most 
" High f lxxxii. 6. to those who have received the 
" grace of adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Fa- 
" ther p. No other person therefore, as I said be- 
" fore, receives the name of God, or appellation of 
" Lord, except He who is God and Lord of all, 
" (who also said to Moses, / am that I am : and 
" thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, I 
" AM hath sent me unto you %) and His Son Jesus 
" Christ, our Lord, who makes those who believe 
u in his name to be sons of God : and in another 
" place the Son speaks to Moses, saying, / am come 
" down to deliver this people r : for it is he himself 
" who descended and ascended for the salvation of 
" men. It is by the Son therefore who is in the 
" Father, and has the Father in himself, that he 
" who is truly God has been manifested unto us, the 
" Father bearing testimony to the Son, and the Son 
" announcing the Father s ." 



p Rom. viii. 15. 
9 Exod. iii. 14. 
r lb. 8. 

s Neque igitur Dominus, ne- 
que Spiritus Sanctus, neque 
apostoli eum, qui non esset 
Deus, definitive et absolute 
Deum nominassent aliquando, 
nisi esset vere Deus : neque 
Dominum appellassent aliquem 
ex sua persona, nisi qui domi- 
natur omnium, Deum Patrem, 
et Filium ejus, qui dominium 
accepit a Patre suo omnis con- 
ditionis, quemadmodum habet 

illud, Dixit Dominus &c. 

Patrem enim Filio colloquutum 
ostendit, qui dedit ei haeredita- 

tem &c. Vere igitur cum 

Pater sit Dominus, et Filius 



vere sit Dominus, merito Spi- 
ritus Sanctus Domini appella- 
tione signavit eos. — Simi- 
liter habet illud, Sedes tua, 
Deus &c. Utrosque enim Dei 
appellatione signavit Spiritus, et 
eum, qui ungitur, Filium, et 
eum qui ungit, id est, Patrem 
Et iterum, Deus stetit &c. De 
Patre, et Filio, et de his qui 
adoptionem perceperunt, dicit : 
Hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hsec 
enim est synagoga Dei, quam 
Deus, hoc est, Filius ipse per 
semetipsum collegit. De quo 
iterum dixit, Deus deorum &c. 
Quis Deus ? de quo dixit, Deus 
manifeste veniet, Deus noster, et 
non silebit : hoc est Filius, qui 
secundum manifestationem ho- 



80 



IRENiEUS, A. D. 185. 



These words, which I have been obliged to give 
at length, require no comment. Not only do they 
expressly and literally make the Son to be one with 
the Father ; but the whole course of the argument, 
of which they form a part, requires us to consider 
the Son as God, not officially or ministerially, but in 
his own nature, as being the one only God. 

50. Irencei 1. 3. c. 8. §. %. p. 183. 

It seems impossible that Irenaeus could have be- 
lieved Jesus Christ to have been created by God. 
The object of this chapter is to prove that no other 
God is mentioned in scripture, but the one true 
only God : " Nor can any of those things which have 
" been made, and are in subjection, be compared to 
66 the Word of God, by whom all things were made, 
" who is our Lord Jesus Christ. For that angels, 



minibus advenit, qui dicit, Pa- 
lam apparui &c. Quorum au- 
tem deorum ? quibus dicit, Ego 
dixi &c. Nemo igitur alius, 
quemadmodum prsedixi, Deus 
nominatur, aut Dominus ap- 
pellator, nisi qui est omnium 
Deus et Dominus, qui et Moysi 
dixit, Ego sum qui sum. Et sic 
dices Jiliis Israel, Qui est, misit 
me ad vos : et hujus Filius Je- 
sus Christus Dominus noster, 
qui filios Dei facit credentes in 
nomen suum. Et iterum lo- 
quente Filio ad Moysen, De- 
scend i, inquit, eripere populum 
hunc. Ipse est enim qui de- 
scendit et ascendit propter sa- 
lutem hominum. Per Filium 
itaque, qui est in Patre, et ha- 
bet in se Patrem, is, Qui est, 
manifestatus est Deus, Patre tes- 
timonium perhibente Fiiio, et 
Filio annuntiante Patrem. The 
words, qui est, manifestatus est 



Deus, are evidently a trans- 
lation of o uv Ttecpai/epaTczi ®eo?, 
where o m is used in reference 
to those words in Exodus iii. 
14. which we translate I AM, 
and which the Latins rendered 
Qui est. Thus Tertullian men- 
tions Qui est among the titles 
of the Father, which are given 
also to the Son. (adv. Prax. c. 1 7. 
p. 510.) The Greek expression 
0 av is the same as Qui est, and 
can hardly be translated : thus 
Cierm Alex, speaks of Christ as 
c iv tS ovrt av, V ery God in very 
God. (Cohort, p. 7.) Athanasius 
uses it in a still more peculiar 
manner, 6 ®eo$ w i<rn, kcu ov 
(rvvQeroq' 810 Kcti 0 zqvtgv Xoyo^ cov 

iari, k. t. X. Orat. c. Gent. 41. 
vol. I. p. 40. A consideration of 
this peculiar use of the words 
0 av may explain the apparent 
solecism in Rev. i. 4. ano tqv 0 
oov kou 0 kou 0 tpxopevot;. 



IREN.EUS, A. D. 185. 



81 



" or archangels, or thrones, or dominations, were ap- 
" pointed by Him, who is God over all, and made 
" by His Word, John has thus told us ; for after he 
" had said of the Word of God, that he was in the 
" Father, he added, All things were made by him, 
" and without him was not any thing made 1 " 

Before we finish this quotation I must observe, 
that Irenaeus evidently understood John i. 3. of the 
creation of all things by Jesus Christ. The Unita- 
rian translators say, that this was not the meaning 
of St. John ; that yivopou, as used in the New Testa- 
ment, never signifies to be created ; and that the pas- 
sage merely means, that all things in the Christian 
dispensation were done by Christ. Irenaeus consi- 
dered the passage as equivalent to that in Col. i. 16. 
which is also said by the Unitarians to have no re- 
ference to the creation, but to that great change 
ivhich was introduced into the moral world by the 
Gospel. We may remember, that Irenaeus himself 
wrote in Greek : and the account which has been 
given of his life would make it almost impossible 
that he should so grossly have mistaken the mean- 
ing of St. John. I may add, that all the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers interpret the words of St. John in 
the same sense as Irenaeus. See N°. 229- We can- 
not wonder that the Unitarians should endeavour to 
explain away such texts as John i. 3. Col. i. 16. 

1 Sed nec quidquam ex his qui super omnes est Deus et 

quae constituta sunt, et in sub- constituta sunt et facta per Ver- 

jectione sunt, comparabitur Ver- bum ejus, Joannes quidem sic 

bo Dei, per quern facta sunt significavit. Cum enim dixisset 

omnia, qui est Dominus noster de Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in 

Jesus Christus. Quoniam enim Patre, adjecit, Omnia pe* eum 

sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive facta sunt, et sine eo factum est 

throni, sive dominationes, ab eo nihil. 

G 



82 



IREN^EUS, A.D. 185. 



Heb. i. 2. That a created being should himself 
create matter out of nothing, or even be employed 
as an instrument to do so, seems to our understand- 
ings impossible : if therefore the scriptures positively 
affirm that the world was created by Christ, his 
divinity follows of course. The argument is well 
treated by Athanasius, Orat. II. c. Arian. 20-2. 
vol. I. p. 487, &c. 

This Father continues, after some other observa- 
tions ; — " But whatever has had a beginning, and 
M may admit dissolution, and is subject, and stands 
" in need of him who made it, must necessarily be 
M called by a different term even by those who have 
" only moderate sense in perceiving such things : so 
" that he who made all things can alone properly 
" be called, together with the Word, God and Lord: 
" but things which are made cannot partake of the 
" same term, nor properly bear that appellation, 
" which belongs to the Creator u ." 

That Christ was not created, has been already 
proved from Irenaeus at N°. 46, 47. pp. 75, 76. and yet 
Dr. Priestley makes the strange assertion, that " it 
" had been the custom of the orthodox to speak of 
" the generation of the Son from the Father, as if 
" it had been a proper creation, and as if the Son 
" had stood in the very same relation to the Father, 
" with that in which other creatures stood to him x ." 

u Quaecunque autem initium qui omnia fecerit, cum Verbo 

sumpserunt, et dissolutionem suo juste dicatur Deus et I)o- 

possunt percipere, et subjecta minus solus ; quse autem facta 

sunt, et indigent ejus qui se sunt, non jam ejusdem vocabuli 

fecit, necesse est omnimodo ut participabilia esse, neque juste 

difFerens vocabulum habeant id vocabulum sumere debere, 

apud eos etiam, qui vel modi- quod est Creatoris. 
cum sensum in discernendo ta- x History of early Opinions, 

lia habent: ita ut is quidem, IV. p. 175. 



IREN/EUS, A. D. 185. 



83 



51. Irencei 1. 3. c. 9- §. 2. p. 184. 

Speaking of the offerings of the Magi, he says, 
" They shewed by the gifts which they presented, 
" who it was that was worshipped : myrrh, to shew 
" that it was he who died and was buried for man- 
" kind ; gold, to shew that he was a King, of whose 
66 kingdom there is no end; (Luke i. 33.) but in- 
66 cense, that he was God, who in Judah was well 
" known, (Psalm lxxvi. 1.) and manifest to those 
" who did not seek him?" (Isaiah Ixv. 1.) Similar 
interpretations of these three offerings may be found 
in other of the Fathers. Clement of Alexandria 
says, that " gold was brought to him when he was 
66 born, as a symbol of a kingdom z ." Origen ob- 
serves, that " they brought gifts, which, if I may so 
" say, they offered symbolically to one compounded 
" of God and a mortal man ; gold, as to a king ; 
" myrrh, as to one who was to die ; and incense, as 
" to a god a ." Peter of Alexandria says, that " they 
" presented gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to 
" a King and God and Man V 

52. Irencei 1. 3. c. 9. §. ult. p. 185. 

Irenaeus having spoken of the descent of the Holy 
Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism, quotes Isaiah xi. 1. 
and lxi. 1 ; upon which quotations he remarks, " In- 



y Per ea quae obtulerunt mu- 
nera ostendisse, quis erat qui 
adorabatur : myrrham quidem, 
quod ipse erat, qui pro mortali 
hutuano genere moreretur et 
sepeliretur : aurum vero, quo- 
niam Rex &c. thus vero, quo- 
niam Deus, qui et notus in Ju- 
daea &c. 

z Xcvcroi/ civtS) yevi/riBevn Bolctl- 
Aeiotq av^oXov irpo<T€t<6[M<ra,v ol M«- 

yoi. Paed. II. 8. p. 206. 



a $epovT€<; [Atv dupct, a (f>' otrccq 
ovofAciace) avvQerco rivi Ik ®eov kou 
av6p£itov 6>'/}tgv Ttpoa-YjVeyKav, cri^x,- 
fiohcc jWev, aq (3a,(7i}.e7 rov ^pvcTov, u>c, 

reOv^o.ueya t^v a-y<vpvav, wq 
©ea? tgv Aifiavarw. Contra Cels. 
I. 60. p. 375. 

b Ylpoacpepoweq avrS KoupiutaToc 
koli Trpeira'deiTTaTa §copa, %pvaov kou 
AiBavov kcc) autpvav, ccq (3ot<TL\e7 k<x\ 
®ea kou avQpur.oo. Can. XIII s 
(Rel. Sacr. III. p. 341.) 

G 2. 



84 



IREN.EUS, A.D. 185. 



" asmuch as the Word of God was man, of the root 
66 of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect the 
" Spirit of God rested upon him, and he was anointed 
" to preach the Gospel to the humble. But inas- 
" much as he was God, he did not judge after the 
" sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hear- 
" ing of his ears : (Isaiah xi. 3.) for he needed not 
" that any should testify of man : for he knew 
" what was in man c T (John ii. 25.) 

53. Irencei 1. 3. c. 11. §. 8. p. 191. 

The following passage can only be explained on 
the hypothesis of the preexistence of Christ : " The 
" Word of God conversed with the patriarchs before 
" Moses in his divine and glorious character : to 
" those under the law, he fulfilled the office of a 
" priest : and after this, becoming man, he sent the 
" gift of the Holy Ghost into all the earth, covering 
" us with his own wings d ." 

* 53. Irencei 1. 3. c. 12. §. 9. p. 197. 

Having quoted the passage in the Acts, ix. 20. 
where it is said that St. Paul after his conversion 
preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the 
Son of God, Irenaeus observes : " This is the mys- 
" tery, which he says was made known to him by 
" revelation, that he who suffered under Pontius Pi- 
" late, the same is Lord of all, and King, and God, 

c Nam secundum id quod opus &c. 
Verbum Dei homo erat, ex ra- d Ka) avroq Se o Koyoq rov ®cov 

dice Jesse, et filius Abrahse, se- rotq npo Mava-eaq varpidpxait; 

cundum hoc requiescebat Spiri- Kara, to Oe'iKov koI 'ivlo^ov a^lker 

tus Dei super eum, et ungeba- roi<; de h rS vopu UpariK^v- 

tur ad evangelizandum humili- rd^iv dtikve^v pera, 8e ravra av- 

bus. Secundum autem quod Bpconoq yevoptvoq r\v lapeav rov dylov 

Deus erat, non secundum glo- Hvevu^aroq naa-av efcTiep^e r\v 

riam judicabat, neque secundum y^v, GKtTidXpv ^ac, ra7q eavrov 

loquelam arguebat : non enim itrkpv^v. 



IRENJEUS, A.D. 185. 



85 



" and Judge 6 ." Irenaeus appears to refer to Eph. i. 
9. iii. 3. and other places. 

54. Irencei 1. 3. c. 13. §. 1. p. 200. 

" And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, 
" when he had mentioned all who saw God after 
" his resurrection, he added, Therefore, whether 
" it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye 
" believed ; (1 Cor. xv. 11.) declaring, that there 
" was one and the same preaching of all those who 
" saw God after his resurrection from the dead f ." 
It is needless to observe, that God means Jesus 
Christ. 

55. Irencei 1. 3. c. 16. §. 2. p. 204. 

The Gnostic heretics made Jesus and Christ two 
distinct persons. According to some of them, Jesus 
was the son of Joseph and Mary, a mere man, born 
in the ordinary way, upon whom Christ descended. 
It was not therefore Christ who suffered, but merely 
the man Jesus, who was as it were the receptacle of 
Christ. Irenaeus refutes this notion in the present 
chapter, and shews that Jesus Christ, who was born 
and crucified, was truly God and man. 

Among other arguments he quotes the words of 
St. Matthew, i. 18. Now the birth of Christ was on 
this wise, and observes, that if Matthew had said, 
the birth of Jesus, the Gnostics might have claimed 
this passage as supporting their opinion : but since 

e Tovrea-Ti to [Avo-T'fjpiov, o Xeyei dixisset omnes qui Deum post 

Kara. airoKaXvTpiv lyvapiaBai airy, resurrectionem viderunt, intulit, 

on o naBuv eTTt Tlovrlov HiXcItqv, Sive autem &c. unam et eandem 

outc? Kvpto<; rav ndi/Tuv, kou finer i- praedicationem confitens om- 

Xel?, kcci ©eo?, k«i KptTvjs ia-nv. nium eorum qui Deum vide- 

f Et rursus in ea Epistola runt post resurrectionem a mor- 

quse est ad CorinthioSj cum prse- tuis. 

g3 



86 



IREN^EUS, A.D. 185. 



the Evangelist speaks of Christ % being born and 
descended from Abraham, the union of the divine 
and human natures is proved : to which he adds, 
" and lest we should chance to think him a mere 
" man, he is called Emmanuel, God with us V 

These Gnostics did not in fact deny the divinity 
of Christ : they denied the union of the divine and 
human natures in one person. It was their con- 
viction of the divinity of Christ, which made them 
decide that he could not become a man, as they 
knew Jesus to have been : they had therefore re- 
course to the absurd doctrine, which Irenaeus here 
refutes. He goes on to shew, that St. Paul expressly 
mentioned the two natures of Christ : he quotes 
Rom. i. 3, 4. and then the controverted text, Rom. 
ix. 5. " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as 
" concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, 
" God blessed for ever" 

These words, as they are quoted by Irenaeus, and 
as they are translated in our English Bibles, un- 
equivocally assert that Christ is God : but since the 
Unitarians have tried to elude the force of this evi- 
dence, it will be necessary to examine, as briefly as 
we can, their statements and their reasoning. 

In the Improved Version the passage is trans- 
lated thus: — and of whom by natural descent Christ 
came. God who is over all be blessed for ever. 

& It appears that the copies ening his 'argument. Not. in 

of St. Matthew which Irenaeus Ed. Bened. The Vulgate also 

used had only Christ in this reads only Christ. 

place, and not Jesus Christ : 11 — — quoniam] hie est Em- 

for had he found the word Jesus manuel, ne forte tantum eum 

also, he would certainly have hominem putaremus. 
brought it forward as strength- 



IREN^US, A.D. 185. 



87 



I shall not inquire into the propriety of the words 
by natural descent, nor consider whether the inter- 
nal evidence does not require that the sentence 
should be read without this division : but I shall 
confine myself to shewing, what properly belongs to 
the present work, that this mode of construction 
was entirely unknown to the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 
It was in fact never heard of till the time of Eras- 
mus : he is the first writer I can meet with, who 
suggested such a punctuation ; and though the Uni- 
tarians refer to him as their authority, Erasmus 
does not say that he thought this mode of con- 
struction right. The note to the Improved Version 
adds, " In this sense it is probable that the early 
" Christian writers understood the words, who do 
" not apply them to Christ." Mr. Lindsey says *, 
and Mr. Belsham k means to assert the same, (for he 
quotes his words without qualifying or correcting 
them,) " that this clause was read so as not to 
" appear to belong to Christ, at least for the first 
" three centuries :" and Jones 1 observes, " had the 
" original stood as it now does, the early Fathers 
" would have cited this clause in proof of the divi- 
" nity of Christ. But neither Justin (I believe) nor 
" Irenseus nor Tertullian has quoted it with this 
" view m ." 

This is coming to the point. We are here invited 
to meet our opponents on the ground which we have 

1 Sequel, p. 204. " Christ was God over all blessed 

k Translation of St. Paul's "for ever." (History of early 

Epistles. Opinions, II. p. 425.) It would 

1 Analysis of the Epistle to have been more ingenuous, if he 

the Romans. had stated his own sentiments 

m Dr. Priestley only says, concerning this text. 
" Paul is supposed to say, that 

G 4 



88 



IRENyEUS, A.D. 185. 



marked out for ourselves ; their statements are po- 
sitive and precise : and I shall proceed without 
further comment to shew, in what manner and in 
what sense the passage was quoted by the Ante-Ni- 
cene Fathers. 

In the first place it is difficult to understand, with 
what fair intention the name of Justin Martyr is 
mentioned: for since he never quotes the passage 
at all, we can of course infer nothing as to the sense 
in which he understood it. I should be willing to 
believe that Mr. Jones meant to say, that if Justin 
Martyr had known of a text, which contained such 
a direct assertion of the divinity of Christ, he could 
hardly have failed to quote it. But to this I should 
answer, 1. that this is to assume that the divinity of 
Christ was considered by Justin to be a contro- 
vertible point : and 2. the works which remain to us 
of Justin are addressed partly to the heathen, and 
partly to a Jew ; neither of whom would have ac- 
knowledged the authority of St. Paul, if Justin had 
quoted this passage. 

We have already seen, that Irenaeus quotes the 
text as expressly asserting the divine and human 
natures of Christ. The Latin translation of Ire- 
naeus, which alone remains, and which reads, ex 
quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus 
super omnes benedictus in scecula, cannot of course 
admit of the punctuation and division which the 
Unitarians propose : to which I would add, that 
Irenaeus is to be cited, not only as giving his own 
opinion, but as the witness to a fact. He must often 
have read the passage himself; he must often have 
heard it read : it is perhaps not assuming too much 
to say, that he may have heard it read by Poly carp 



IREN.EUS, A.D. 185. 



89 



himself, the immediate disciple of St. John. He 
must therefore have known the manner in which it 
was customary to read the sentence in the churches ; 
and we have seen that he reads it, not so as to make 
the doxology at the end a separate and independent 
clause ; but so as to affirm that Christ, who came of 
the Jews according to the flesh, was also God over 
all, blessed for ever. We may conclude therefore, 
that the text was always read in this way in the 
churches which Irenaeus frequented. 

Tertullian, the third of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
mentioned by Mr. Jones, is the next in order of time 
whose writings we are to examine. He quotes the 
passage in two places. The first is where he is 
answering those persons, who accused the Christians 
of acknowledging more Gods than one : he shews 
from the Old Testament, that the term God is ap- 
plied to more persons than to the Father, and then 
says, " Not that we ever name with our mouth two 
" Gods or two Lords, although the Father is God, 
" and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, 
" and each is God ; — and if the Father and the Son 
" are to be mentioned together, for sake of dis- 
" tinction we call the Father God, and Jesus Christ 
" Lord : but yet, speaking of Christ singly, I can 
" call him God, as Paul did, of whom is Christ, who, 
" he says, is God over all, blessed for ever n ." The 

n Duos tamen Deos et duos Patrem appellem, et Jesum 

Donrinos nunquam ex ore nostro Christum Dominium nominem. 

proferimus ; non quasi non et Solum autem Christum potero 

Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Deum dicere, sicut idem apo- 

Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus stolus, Ex quibus Christus, qui 

unusquisque- sed apostolum est, inquit, Deus super omnia 

sequar, ut si pariter nominandi benedictus in cevum omne. adv. 

fuerint Pater et Filius, Deum Prax. c. 13. p. 507. 



90 



IREN/EUS, A. D. 185. 



next place is in the same treatise, c. 15. where he 
introduces the text with these remarkable words: 
" Paul also himself has called Christ God, Whose 
" are the fathers, and of whom according to the 
"flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed 
"for ever 0 ." 

I might perhaps be satisfied with having shewn 
the falsehood of the statement, that Irenaeus and 
Tertullian do not quote the passage in proof of the 
divinity of Christ. But since Mr. Lindsey and Mr. 
Belsham extend the same remark to all the writers 
of the three first centuries, we must carry the in- 
vestigation further. 

The next writer in point of time who quotes the 
passage, is Hippolytus, who flourished about the 
year 220. He wrote a work against Noetus, who 
adopted what is called the Patripassian heresy : i. e. 
he believed that Christ was actually God the Fa- 
ther, and that the Father appeared upon earth, and 
died on the cross. One of the means which he used 
to support this doctrine, was to cite all the texts 
which spoke of Christ as God : and after quoting 
many, he says, " Christ was God, and suffered for 
<e our sakes, being himself the Father, that he might 
" save us. We cannot come to any other conclu- 
" sion ; for the apostle acknowledges one God, when 
" he says, Whose are the fathers, of whom as con- 
" cerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, 
" God blessed for ever p." Thus Noetus evidently 

0 Christum autem et ipse p X^crro? yap \v ®eo<;, kou eva- 

( Paulas) Deum cognominavit, <r%ev Si' r^SLc, avroq av Uarrjp, Xva, 

Quorum patres, et ex quibus kou a-uaai Biwj07j. "AKXo Se, 

Christus secundum carnem, qui frqeiv, ov Iwoi^Ba, \eyew, kou yap 

est super omnia Deus benedictus o aitoa-Tokoq eva ©eov opoXoyei, Xe- 

in (EVum. ycov, du/ ol noire peq, e| uv o Xpiaroq 



IREN.EUS, A. D. 185. 



91 



understood the passage as asserting the divinity of 
Christ 9. But it may be objected that Noetus was a 
heretic. We will therefore see what notice Hippo- 
lytus takes of this quotation. We need not follow 
Him in his refutation of Noetus ; but he begins the 
6th chapter thus: "As to the apostle saying, Whose 
" are the fathers^ &c. he declares the mystery of 
" the truth properly and plainly. He who is over 
" all is God : for he thus says boldly, All things are 
" delivered unto me of the Father, (Matt. xi. 27.) 
" He that is God over all is blessed ; and becoming 
" man is God for ever r ." 

Origen is the next writer, and nothing can be 
more decisive than his testimony in favour of the 
received interpretation; (in Rom. vii. 13. vol. 4. 
p. 612.) but I forbear to dwell upon it, because 
wherever the original Greek of Origen is lost, there 
is too much reason to suspect that additions and 
interpolations have been made by his translator 
Rufinus. There can be no doubt however that 
Origen noticed the passage, because he was writing 
a laboured commentary upon the whole Epistle: and 
though Rufinus may have added to the original, he 
would hardly have altered the whole tenor and spirit 
of it. 

to Kara. adpKa, b oov it) tcccvtcov the remaining words, p. 487. 
®eoq (.vXoy^Toq elq Tovq alavaq. C. r *0 $e Xeyet b anoTToKoq, uv oi 
Noet, C. 2. II. p. J. narepeq, k.t.X. KaXcoq diyyeTrai kou 

1 Epiphanius also observes, Xap-npuq to Tr\q akrfidaq [/.va-r^pioV 
that the followers of Noetus ovroq b vv iiri vdvrccv ®eoq ea-TiV, 
quoted this text, Haer. LVII. Xeyet yap ovtco /xtTa irappvjo-taq, 
vol. I. p. 481 ; and he could not tcdvra poi Ttapalelarai tiro tov Ha- 
himself have adopted the punc- Tpoq' b uv eVi nrdvTuv ®eoq evXoyYjToq 
tuation proposed by Erasmus, yeyevqrcci, kcci avOponoq yevopevoq 
since in another place he finishes ®eo$ i<rnv elq robq alwvaq. c. 6. 
it with kit) ndvTw ©eo?, omitting p. 10. 



92 



IRENJEUS, A.D. 185. 



Cyprian, who wrote between the years 247 and 
258, quotes the passage in his work entitled Testi- 
monies against the Jews. The second book is al- 
most entirely composed of texts, with little of Cy- 
prian's own, except the short heads or titles to each 
chapter. The subject of the 6th chapter is Quod 
Deus Christus, That Christ is God : and after 
many other quotations, he says, without any further 
observation, " Also Paul to the Romans, / could 
" wish, &c. whose are the fathers, and of whom 
" as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over 
" all, God blessed for ever." p. 286. 

Novatian, who was accounted a heretic, but who 
had no heretical opinions concerning Christ, quotes 
the passage twice in his work upon the Trinity, 
which is supposed to have been written soon after 
the year 257. In c. 13. he is shewing, by a reference 
to many texts, that " the substances both of God 
" and man were united in Christ s ;" and after quot- 
ing this of St. Paul, without any comment, he con- 
cludes that " Christ is God." In c. 30. he argues, 
as Hippolytus did, against those who would not see 
that the Father is God and the Son God, yet there 
are not two Gods, but only one ; and among many 
other texts which prove the divine and human na- 
ture of Christ, he quotes without any comment the 
one now before us. 

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, died in the year 
264, and his works which remain to us were com- 
posed not long before. He may be supposed to 
allude to this passage, when speaking of Christ he 

s — utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi 
fosderasse concordiam. p. 715. 



IREN^US, A.D. 185. 



93 



twice calls him " God over all 1 " for in no other 
place of the New Testament do these words occur. 

The last instance which I shall bring is a quota- 
tion of the passage in a letter written by the council 
of Antioch in the year 269. This council was con- 
vened against the heresy of Paul of Samosata ; and 
the Fathers in their letter assert that the Son of 
God is essentially and substantially God. They 
prove this by many texts, and among the rest by 
this of St. Paul u . 

I would now ask, what grounds can Mr. Belsham 
or any other person have for saying, " that this text 
" was read so as not to appear to belong to Christ, 
" at least for the first three centuries?" If it is ever 
quoted by the Ante-Nicene Fathers so as to support 
this assertion, I am not aware of the passage : I have 
looked carefully for it through all their writings, and 
I wish the reader to decide, whether there is any 
trace, even the remotest suspicion, of any of these 
Fathers having understood the passage in any other 
way, except as plainly declaring that Christ is 
God x . 

I am sorry that Mr. Belsham should repeat the 



1 c O av eVi TcdvTOov ©eo^. p. 246. 

and 248. 

u Reliq. Sacr. II. p. 467. 

x The passage is quoted by 
the following Post-Nicene Fa- 
thers. Athanas. Orat. IV. c. 
Arian. 1. vol. I. p. 617. Ep. II. 
ad Serap. 2. p. 684. Epist. ad 
Epict. 10. p. 908. Cont. Apol. 
I. 10. p. 930. In a doubtful 
work, vol. II. p. t6. in another, 
p. 215. In the Homily in Na- 
tivitatem Christi, falsely ascribed 
to Athanasius, vol. II. p. 413. 



In the fourth Dialogue de Tri- 
nitate, A th. vol II p. 531. Epi- 
phanius, User. LVIL vol. I. p. 
487. Hser. LXXIV. 6. p. 894. 
Hser. LXXVI. p. 977-8. Theo- 
doret's quotation of the passage 
makes the Unitarian punctuation 
impossible : he stops at @<-o?, 
and says, kou £v tS en icpoacoita 
tZv $vo (pvtreav to lid(popov ehei^ei/' 
t'f 'lovhalccv |W6J/ Korea crcipKa yeye- 
vfj^ivov , kou vavTuv Se Seov d><; ®eov, 
kou elq TOvq ouwvac, evXoy^Tov. Haer. 

Fab. V. 14. vol, IV. p. 287. 



94 



IREN/EUS, A. D. 185. 



exploded and refuted story of the word God being 
wanting in the copies of Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrys- 
ostom, in their quotations of this text. This is not 
true ; at least if any MSS. of these authors do omit 
the word, it must be by accident, because they all 
introduce the passage where they are expressly ar- 
guing that Christ is God. 

Mr. Belsham, in his own translation of St. Paul's 
Epistles, adopts another method of evading this plain 
text. He alters 6 oov into uv o 9 and translates it, 
" whose is the God over all, blessed for ever." I am 
not concerned with this alteration any further than 
to notice, what indeed the reader will have seen, 
that none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers countenance 
this transposition. It is in fact arbitrary, unauthor- 
ized, and presumptuous ; and our astonishment at 
finding it in Mr. Belsham's translation will be in- 
creased, when we read in a work, published by him- 
self only five years before, this very strong argument 
against admitting it ; " This conjecture, ingenious 
" and even probable as it is, not being supported by 
" a single MS. version or authority, cannot be ad- 
" mitted into the text?:" and yet he has himself 
admitted it ! and being aware that the conjunction 
and after the word fathers seemed to denote the 
last clause of the sentence, whereas his own trans- 
position has added another clause, he omits the con- 
junction altogether ! 

In the Improved Version it is also stated, that 
" the early Christian writers pronounce it to be 
" rashness and impiety to say that Christ was God 
" over all." This statement is probably borrowed 



y Calm Inquiry, p. 143. 



IREN/EUS, A.D. 185. 



95 



from Wetstein, who brings a great many quotations 
from the Fathers, in which it is said, that Christ is 
not o em navTuv Seo$, the God over all. If we ex- 
amine these quotations, it appears that they all refer 
to the Sabellian controversy, and that those persons, 
who had called Christ o eiri navTcov Seog, intended by 
the expression that he was God the Father. This 
of course was denied by the orthodox party, who 
contended, that Christ was not over all in this sense, 
for the Father is necessarily excluded from being 
subject to his Son, as is said by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 
xv. 27. In this sense, and in this sense only, was 
it allowed and even asserted by the catholics, that 
Christ was not b h) iravruv Seog. The early writers 
made a distinction between bit ttolvtw ®eo$, and 6 enl 
navTcov Beog. The former is the expression used by 
St. Paul ; and we find Athanasius, who was not con- 
cerned with the Sabellian controversy, expressly call- 
ing Christ, "the Saviour and mighty God over all 7 .' 1 
" The Word of God, who is over all a ." " God of 
" God, and over all blessed for ever b :" and these ex- 
pressions of Athanasius are more remarkable, because 
in other places he applies the same to God the Fa- 
ther c . Eusebius, who has been suspected of Arian- 
ism, represents the Christian martyrs in Phrygia as 
calling upon Christ the God over all A : and he him- 

z Toy eici izdvTuv crwrv/pa kou hv- Tov lirl ttccvtccv ®eov Xptcnov 

varov @eov Xoyov. De Incarn. 55. eTufiooopevovt;. E. H. VIII. I I. 

Vol. I. p. 95. Jortin would read — ®elv kou 

a . . . Aoyov dvai tov ®eov tov XpicrTov. (Remarks on Eccl. Hist. 

i^TidvTtovovTa.. AdEpisc. iEgypt. vol. III. p. 174.) Dr. Clarke 

15. p. 285. thinks the words tov im ndvTuv 

b Ka) £k Seov Sao; iaTi,Ka) eir; ®eov an interpolation ; (Script. 

ndvToov €i/Aoyrj[A€voq elq tov; alZvcct;. Doctrine of the Trinity ;) and 

Or. I. c. Arian. 10. p. 414. they are omitted in a MS. at 

c Vol. I. p. 305. 696. Florence. 



96 



IRENiEUS, A. D. 185. 



self speaks of the Son of God as hi navi Xp/orov Seov 
Ivvapiv kou Seov ao<f)Lav e . But when writing against 
Marcellus, a Sabellian, he says that Christ is not tov 
h) ttolvtuv Seov f , and he says expressly that the Sa- 
bellians taught that "the God who is over all, the 
" Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was born of the 
" Virgin I would observe, that our Saviour says, 
speaking of himself, He that cometh from above is 
above all, b avoodev epyo^vog hdvco tiolvtoov ecrriv. John 
iii. 31. 

56. Irencei 1. 3. c. 16. §. 7. p. 206. 

In the same chapter he says of Christ, " He fulfils 
" the rich and vast will of his Father, he himself 
" being the Saviour of those who are saved, and the 
" Lord of those who are under his dominion, and 
" the God of the things which are made, and the 
i( only-begotten of the Father, and Christ who was 
" foretold, and the Word of God, who became in- 
" carnate, when the fulness of time arrived, in which 
" the Son of God was to become the Son of man h ." 

57. Irentei 1. 3. c. 18. §. 1. p. 209. 

" Having clearly proved that the Word which in 
" the beginning was with God, by whom all things 
c< were made, who also was always present with 
" mankind, in these last days, according to the time 
" prefixed by the Father, was united unto his own 
" creation, and became man capable of suffering : it 



e Demonst. Evang. V. i. p. 

212. 

f P. 8. 

g DeEccles. Theol. II. i. p. 
104 : 4. p. 107. 

h Diviti enim et multae volun- 
tati Patris deservit, cum sit ipse 
Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et 



Dominus eorum qui sunt sub 
dominio, et Deus eorum quae 
constituta sunt, et unigenitus 
Patris, et Christus qui praedica- 
tus est, et Verbum Dei, incar- 
natus cum advenisset plenitudo 
temporis, in quo Filium hominis 
fieri oportebat Filium Dei. 



IREN.EUS, A.D. 185. 



97 



" follows, that all contradiction is excluded of those 
" who say, if Christ was born at that time^ there- 
" fore he did not exist before. For we have proved, 
" that the Son of God did not then begin to be, hav- 
" ing always existed with his Father ; but when he 
" became incarnate, and was made man, he summed 
" up in himself the whole human race, giving us 
" salvation V &c. 

58. Irencei 1. 3. c. 18. §. 7. p. 211. 
He here continues the demonstration of Jesus 
Christ being God and man, and uses these remark- 
able words ; " Jesus therefore, as we have said be- 
" fore, united man with God. For if it had not 
" been a man who conquered the adversary of man, 
" the enemy would not have been rightly conquered. 
" And again, if it had not been God who gave sal- 
" vation, we should not have had it securely. And 
" if man had not been united to God, he could not 
" have partaken of immortality. For it was neces- 
" sary that the mediator between God and man, by 
" his own relationship to both, should bring both to 
" friendship and unanimity ; that he should present 
66 man to God, and make God known to men k ." 



[ Ostenso manifeste, quod in 
principio Verbum existens apud 
Deum, per quern omnia facta 
sunt, qui et semper aderat ge- 
neri liumano, hunc in novissi- 
mis temporibus, secundum pras- 
finitum tempus a Fatre, unitum 
suo plasmati, passibilem homi- 
nem factum, exclusa est omnis 
contradictio dicentium, Si ergo 
tunc natus est, non erat ergo 
ante Christus. Ostendimus enim 
quia non tunc ccepit Filius Dei, 
existens semper apud Patrem ; 



sed quando incarnatus est, et 
homo factus, longam hominum 
expositionem in seipso recapitu- 
lavit, in compendio nobis sa- 
lutem praestans, &c. Recapitu- 
lavit is probably the translation 
of a,veK(.<pa.\ai.u<ra,To, the meaning 
of which verb is, to bring many 
things under one head. Irenaeus 
frequently applies it to Christ, 
who represented the whole hu- 
man race. V. i Cor. xv, 22. 

rov avBpar.ov tS ®eS. Et yap fx^ 
H 



98 



IREN^US, A.D. 185. 



Irenseus, with many other Fathers, whose names 
may be seen in the note, understood Christ to be 
a mediator, because he partook of both natures, the 
divine and the human. 

59. Irencei 1. 3. c. 19. §. 2. p. 212. 
In this chapter also having said, that those who 
believed Christ to be a mere man had no chance of 
eternal life 1 ; he observes, that no one of all the sons 
of Adam is called in the scriptures God or Lord, 
and adds, that Jesus " above all men that ever lived 
" is called God and Lord and Eternal King, and 
" only-begotten, and the Incarnate Word, both by 
" all the Prophets and the Apostles, and by the 
" Holy Spirit himself. But the scriptures would 
" not have testified this of him, if he had been merely 
" a man, like all other men. But that he had in 
" himself above all men that exalted birth, which is 
" of the most high Father, and that he had also 
" that exalted birth which is of a Virgin, both these 
" points the divine scriptures testify of him : and 
" that he was a man, with no form nor comeliness, 
" subject to suffering, sitting upon the foal of an 

av6pa-wo<; ivUyo-e tov avTtiraXov tov The same is said by Clem. Alex. 

avOpanov, ovk av dtKaiccq lviK''r\Br\ o Paed. III. I. p. 25 1. Tertull. de 

i%6poq. YldXiv Te, el pj 0 ©eo? e'Sw- Resur. Carnis, 51. p. 357. No- 

prj<ra,To tt,v <ruTVjplav, ovk av f3e(3ala$ vatian. XVIII. Lactant. Instit. 

eo-%o/Aev avTYjv. Ka) el (TvvyveoQYj IV. 13. p. 303. Athanasius, 



compared with the quotation ejus, quod est vita sterna- 
from Hippolytus at N°. 175. §. 1. 
and from Cyprian at N°. 283. 




cont. Apol. 1. 1 1. vol. I. p. 93 1. 
Epiphan. Ancor. 44. vol. II. p. 




1 §. 1. Qui nude tan turn ho- 
minem eum dicunt ex Joseph 

generatum • ignorantes au- 

tem eum, qui ex Virgine est, 
Emmanuel, privantur munere 



IRENJEUSj A. D. 185. 



99 



" ass ; that he had vinegar and gall to drink ; that 
" he was despised by the people, and condescended 
" even to death ; and that he is the holy Lord, and 
" wonderful Counsellor, and beautiful in appear- 
" ance, and the mighty God, coming on the clouds 
" to judge all men — all these things the scriptures 
" prophesied concerning him m ." Dr. Priestley endea- 
vours to prove, that the Gnostics were the only 
persons who were considered as heretics for two or 
three centuries after Christ n : and he says of Ire- 
naeus, that though he mentions the Ebionites, he 
takes no notice at all of any Gentile Unitarians. The 
object of this remark is to persuade us that Irenaeus 
did not consider the Unitarian doctrines as heretical: 
and yet we find Irenaeus saying, as quoted above, 
that those who believed Christ to be a mere man 
had no chance of eternal life. Surely this is the 
Unitarian doctrine, and Irenaeus as surely consi- 
dered it to be heretical. It is plain also from his 
words at N°. 57, that he looked upon those persons 
as heretics, who denied the preexistence of Christ, 
which is also a doctrine of the modern Unitarians. 
60. Irencei 1. 3. c. 20. §. ult. p. 214. 
" Again, it was foretold that it was neither to be 

01 Quoniam auteni ipse pro- clara autem functus est et ea, 

prie praeter omnes qui fuerunt quae est ex Virgine, generatione, 

tunc homines, Deus, et Domi- utraque Scripturae divinae de eo 

nus, et Rex aeternus, et Unige- testificantur : et quoniam homo 

nitus, et Verburn incarnatum indecorus et passibilis, et super 

prsedicatur et a prophetis omni- pullum, &c. &c. — et quoniam 

bus, et Apostolis, et ab ipso Dominus Sanctus, et mirabi- 

Spiritu, adest videre, &c. — Heec lis Consiliarius, et decorus spe- 

autem non testificarentur Scrip- cie, et Deus fortis, super nubes 

turse de eo, si similiter ut omnes veniens universorum Judex, om- 

homo tantum fuisset. Sed quo- nia de eo Scripturae propheta- 

niam praeclaram praeter omnes bant. 

habuit in se earn, quae est ab n History of early Opinions, 

altissimo Patre, genituram, pra5- I. p. 237, and 274^ &c. 

H 2 



100 



IRENjEUS, A.D. 185. 



" a mere man who saves us, nor yet without flesh, 
" (Isaiah lxiii. 9-) and that he should begin to be a 
" real, visible man, although he was the Word giving 
" salvation, (ib. xxxiii. 20.) and that he was not 
" merely a man who died for us- — —and that the 
" Son of God, who is God, was to come from that 
" part which is to the south-west of the inheritance 
" of Judah ; and that he who was of Bethlehem, 
" where the Lord was born, should send forth his 
" praise into all the world, as the prophet Habakkuk 
" says, (ch. iii. 3, 4.) manifestly shewing that he was 
" God, and that his advent was in Bethlehem, and 
" from mount Ephrem, which is to the south-west 
" of the inheritance, and that he was man °." Ire- 
nseus had evidently a different version of some of 
these texts, but this does not affect the truth of the 
doctrine which he supposed to be deduced from 
them. 

61. Irencei 1. 3. c. 21. p. 215. 
The divine and human nature of Christ are fur- 
ther proved in this chapter by reference to the 
prophetic declaration of the Lord to Ahaz ; " God 
" therefore became man, and the Lord himself saved 



° Rursus quoniam neque ho- 
mo tantum erit, qui salvat nos, 
neque sine carne, (sine carne 
enim Angeli sunt) prsedicavit 
enim, dicens, Neque Senior, ne- 
que Angelus, sed ipse Dominus 
salvabit eos, quoniam diligit eos, 
et parcet eis, ipse liber abit eos: 
(Esai. lxiii. 9.) et quoniam hie 
ipse homo verus visibilis inci- 
piet esse, cum sit Verbum sa- 
lutare, rursus Esaias ait, Ecce, 
Sion civitas, salutare nostrum 
oculi tui videbunt : (xxxiii. 20.) 



et quoniam non solum homo 
erat, qui moriebatur pro nobis, 

Esaias ait, Et quoniam ex 

ea parte, quae est secundum 
Africum heereditatis Judae, ve- 
niet Filius Dei, qui Deus est — 
sicut ait Habacuc Propheta, 
Deus ah Africo veniet et Sanc- 
tus de rnonte Effrem, &c. mani- 
feste significans, quoniam Deus, 
et quoniam in Bethleem ad- 
ventus ejus, et ex monte Effrem, 
qui est secundum Africum hae- 
reditatis, et quoniam homo. 



IREN.EUS, A. D. 185. 



101 



" us, giving us the sign of the Virgin p :" and in $.4. 
<e By the words now quoted, (Isaiah vii. 10.) the 
" Holy Ghost has accurately signified his birth, 
" which is of a Virgin, and his substance, that he is 
" God: (for the name Emmanuel signifies this :) and 
" he shews that he was a man, by saying, batter 
" and honey shall he eat, and by calling him a 
" child, and, before he kneiv to choose good and 
" evil: for all these things are tokens of a human 
" child. But that he shall not consent to iniquity 
" that he may choose the good, this is peculiar to 
" God ; that by his eating butter and honey we 
" might not suppose him to be a mere man, nor 
" yet from the name Emmanuel suspect him to be 
" God without flesh i." 

62. Irencei 1. 4. c. 5. §. 2. p. 232. 
The object of this chapter, as of the fourth book 
in general, is to prove that there is only one true 
God, in opposition to the Valentinians, who held 
that the God of the Old Testament, the Creator of 
heaven and earth, was not the same as the Father 
of Christ. He shews, that the Law and the Prophets 
spoke only of one true God, who was also preached 
by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and he concludes ; 
" He therefore who was worshipped by the Prophets, 



P e O ©eo? ovv ccvQpairoc fyeVero, 
/cat ccvtgi; o Kvpiot; taaaev rji*.o£q, §ov<; 
to rvjq KapBevov trvjf/.e'tov. 

9 Diligenter igitur significavit 
Spiritus Sanctus per ea quae di- 
cta sunt generationem ejus, quae 
est ex Virgine, et substantiam, 
quoniani Deus : (Emmanuel 
enim nomen hoc significat,) et 
manifestat quoniam homo, in eo 
quod dicit, Butyrum et rnel man- 
ducabit : et in eo quod infantem 



nominat eum, et priusquam co- 
gnoscat bonam et malum: haec 
enim omnia signa sunt hominis 
infantis. Quod autem non con- 
sentiet nequitice, ut eligat bonum, 
proprium hoc est Dei. uti non 
per hoc, quod manducabit buty- 
rum et mel, nude solummodo 
eum hominem intelligeremus, 
neque rursus per nomen Em- 
manuel sine carne eum Deum 
suspicaremur. 

H 3 



102 



IRENiEUS, A D. 185. 



" the living God, He is the God of the living, and 
" His Word, who also spake with Moses, who also 

" refuted the Sadducees Christ therefore with 

" the Father is the God of the living, who spake 
" with Moses, and was revealed to the patriarchs 1 '." 

The testimony here borne to the divinity of 
Christ is so much the stronger, because Irenseus is 
contending that there is onhj one God mentioned in 
the Old Testament : and since he here argues that 
Christ is the God who is spoken of in the Old 
Testament, it follows, that he must have believed 
him to be of one substance with the Father, very 
and eternal God. 

63. Irencei 1. 4. c. 6. §. 7. p. 234-5. 

Valentinus and the Gnostics did not deny that 
Christ was God, but they said that he was not the 
same with the God of the Old Testament. Irenseus 
shews that the God, whom Christ preached, was the 
same with the God of the Old Testament, who 
created heaven and earth : hence he argues, from 
the confession of the Gnostics themselves, that 
Christ, since he was God, must be the same with 
the God of the Old Testament. " He was one and 
" the same, the Father having subjected all things 
" unto him, and he has received testimony from all, 
" that he is truly man and truly God, from the Fa- 
tf< ther, from the Spirit, from angels, from creation 
" itself, from men, and from apostate spirits, and 
" from devils, and from the enemy, and lastly from 
" death itself 8 ." 

r Qui igitur a Prophetis ado- igitur Christus cum Patre vivo- 

rabatur Deus vivus, hie est vivo- rum est Deus, qui loquutus est 

rum Deus, et Verbum ejus, qui Moysi, qui et Patribus mani- 

et loquutus est Moysi, qui et festatus est. 

Sadducseos redarguit Ipse s Non ergo alius erat qu' 



IRENiEUS, A. D. 185. 



103 



64. Irencei 1. 4. c. 11. §. 4. p. 240. 

In continuation of the same subject, he says, " If 
" therefore the very same God is come, who was 
" foretold by the prophets, our Lord Jesus Christy 
" and his coming has given a fuller grace and a 
" greater distribution of gifts to those who received 
" him, it is plain that it is the very same Father 
" who was announced by the prophets ; and the Son^ 
" when he came, did not spread the knowledge of 
" another Father, but of the same who was spoken 
" of from the beginning V &c. &c. He argues from 
the mutual testimony which the prophets in the Old 
Testament, and Jesus Christ in the New, bore to 
each other. All that the prophets foretold was ful- 
filled in J esus : whatever Jesus said of God his Fa- 
ther, agrees with what is said of God in the Old 
Testament. Jesus did not therefore reveal another 
God ; nor are there more Gods than one, but the 
Father and the Son, who are together one and the 
same God. 

65. Irencei 1. 4. c. 20. §. 4. p. 254. 

It is the object of this chapter to prove that there 
is only one God, viz. He, who made the world ; and 
he says, " There is therefore one God, who made 
" and arranged all things by His Word and Wisdom : 
" but this is the Creator, who also gave this world 
" to the human race ; who in His exceeding great- 
" ness was unknown to all those who were made by 
« Him But according to His love is known 

cognoscebatur, et alius qui di- Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, &c. &c. 
cebat, Nemo cognoscit Patrem, t Si ergo idem ipse adest, qui 

sed unus et idem, omnia sub- praedicatus est aPropbetis,Deus 

jieiente ei Patre, et ab omnibus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, 

accipiens testimonium, quoniam et adventus ejus pleniorem, &c. 

vere homo, et quoniam vere &c. 

H 4 



104 



IRENjEUS, A.D.185. 



" always by him, through whom He ordained all 
" things. But this is His Word, our Lord Jesus 
" Christ, who in these last days was made man 
" among men, that he might join the end to the 
i( beginning, i. e. man to God. And therefore the 
" prophets, receiving the gift of prophecy from the 
" same Word, foretold his coming according to the 
" flesh, by whom the conjoining and communion of 
" God and man was made according to the Will of 
" the Father, the Word of God foretelling from the 
" beginning, that God should be seen by men, and 
" should live with them upon earth, and should con- 
" verse with them, and be present with His creation, 
" saving it, and capable of being perceived by it, 
" and freeing us from the hands of all who hate 
" us u ," &c. 

In this passage the following points are asserted : 
that he who came to save us, who was seen on earth 
and conversed with man, was the same who inspired 
the prophets ; that by him God ordained all things, 
and that he was himself God and man. 

66. Irentei 1. 4. c. 38. §. 1 . p. 284. 

" For this reason also our Lord in the latter times, 



u Unus igitur Deus, qui Ver- 
bo et Sapientia fecit et aptavit 
omnia : hie est autem Demiur- 
gus, qui et mundum hunc attri- 
buit humane- generi, qui secun- 
dum magnitudinem quidem ig- 
notus est omnibus his, qui ab 

eo facti sunt secundum 

autem dilectionem cognoscitur 
semper per eum, per quern con- 
stituit omnia. Est autem hie 
Verbum ejus, Dominus noster 
Jesus Christus, qui novissimis 
temporibus homo in hominibus 
factus est, ut finem conjungeret 



principio, id est, hominem Deo. 
Et propterea Prophetas ab eo- 
dem Verbo propheticum acci- 
pientes charisma prsedicaverunt 
ejus secundum carnem adven- 
tum, per quern commixtio et 
communio Dei et hominis se- 
cundum placitum Patris facta 
est, ab initio praenuntiante Ver- 
bo Dei, quoniam videbitur Deus 
ab hominibus, et conversabitur 
cum eis super terram, et coilo- 
queretur, et adfuturus esset suo 
plasmati, sal vans illud, et per- 
ceptibilis ab eo, &c. 



IRENiEUS, A.D. 185. 



105 



" having summed up every thing in himself, came 
" unto us, not as he might have come, but as we 
" were able to behold him ; for he might have come 
" to us in his incorruptible glory : but we could 
" never have borne the greatness of his glory x ." 
Compare N°. 6. p. 7. 

67. Irencei 1. 5. c. 17. §. 3. p. 314. 

The following words belong to a different argu- 
ment, but they require no introductory remarks to 
make them plain. " Jesus therefore by remitting 
" sins cured men, and manifestly shewed himself 
" who he was : for if no one can remit sins except 
" God alone, but the Lord remitted these and cured 
" men, it is plain that he was the Word of God, 
" being made the Son of man, receiving from the 
" Father the power of the remission of sins, that he 
" was man, and that he was God ; that like as he 
" suffered with us as man, he had compassion upon 
" us as God y." 

68. Irencei 1. 5. c. 19. §. 1. p. 316. 

The expression of Irenaeus, that the Virgin Mary 
" received the glad tidings by the word of the angel, 
" that she should conceive God z ," is a very strong 
proof of the doctrine which we are maintaining, and 



X Ai« TOVTQ KGtl o Kvpioq 7][J.aV 

eir' ecr^arojv tuv Kaipav avaicecpa- 
Aaicoa-dciAevoq elq uvtgv to, navrcc, 
'^XBe npoq '/][^a,q, uq avroq -qZv- 
varo, aXX 5 uq v)y.€iq wItov Ifieiv ydv- 
vd^aBa' avroq [/.ev yap iv ttj d,(f)8d,p- 
ru) avTov to^ri itpoq r^Aaq iXdeiv 7]§v- 
varo' a>X rj^eiq ovbiizuitore to \A.k- 
yeOoq rrjq 80^5 avrov fiacrT ccC<eiv 
'/jZwduedcz. 

y Peccata igitur remittens ho» 
minem quidem curavit, semet- 
ipsum autem manifeste ostendit 
quis esset. Si enim nemo pot- 



est remittere peccata, nisi solus 
Deus, remittebat autem haec 
Do minus, et curabat homines : 
manifestum, quoniam ipse erat 
Verbum Dei, Filius hominis 
factus, a Patre potestatem re- 
missions peccatorum accipiens, 
quoniam homo, et quoniam 
Deus ; ut quomodo homo com- 
passus est nobis, tamquam Deus 
misereatur nostri, &c. 

z Per angelicum sermonem 
evangelizata est, ut portaret 
Deum. 



106 



IREN^EUS, A.D. 185. 



reminds us of the epithet of QeoroKog, Mother of 
God, which many of the Fathers have applied to 
the Virgin Mary. 

Socrates indeed tells us a , that Nestorius publicly 
condemned the use of this word, as involving an 
impossibility, that God should be born of a human 
being like Mary. Nestorius was accused of sepa- 
rating the nature of Christ into two distinct per- 
sons, as if one person had performed the actions 
suitable to the divine nature, and a different person 
had suffered, he. as man : and it might be supposed, 
that he objected to the term Mother of God, be- 
cause he believed Jesus Christ to be a mere man. 
He was in fact charged with this heresy by his ene- 
mies b : but Socrates, who was contemporary with 
Nestorius, tells us, that the charge was false, and 
that Nestorius did not believe Jesus to have been a 
mere man ; and that it was only the words Mother 
of God, to which he objected. We must remember 
also, that the dispute about this term was not heard 
of till the fifth century, when, as Socrates tells us, 
the prohibition issued by Nestorius was received 
with the greatest alarm by the clergy and laity, 
" who had been taught from ancient times to con- 
" sider Christ as God, and by no means to separate 
" him as a man, on account of his incarnation, from 
" the Godhead c ." 

a H, E. VII. 32. " Arians, and to have held the 

b The same charge is made " consubstantiality, coeternity, 

by Tillemont, Mem. torn. I. " and natural coequality of the 

p. 123 : but Jortin appears to " three divine Persons or Hy- 

be correct in saying, " In the " postases." Remarks, vol. IV. 

" Nestorian controversy, the p. 278. 

" contending parties seem to c 'Ho-av yap itaXai &Sa%0eVres 

*' have been all of one opinion OeoXoyeTv rou Xpiarov, koi p$cux,£$ 

" as to the doctrine of the Tri- avrov T$fc oiKovoiMaq, avOptimov, 

" nity, in opposition to the %opt%Etv c«c tt}$ 0eoT7jTO£. P. 380. 



IREN.EUS, A.D.185. 



107 



It has been asserted, that the title of €>€otoko$, or 
Mother of God, was not given to the Virgin till 
the time of the third council of Ephesus, A. D. 
430 d : but this is a mistake. The Fathers convened 
at that council, who approved of the use of the term, 
expressly said, that the holy Fathers before them did 
not hesitate to use it e . Evagrius, who agrees with 
Socrates in relating the controversy, says f , that the 
word had been used by many celebrated Fathers ; 
and John bishop of Antioch, who wrote to Nesto- 
rius upon the subject, asserts the same thing s . So- 
crates expressly names Eusebius and Origen as hav- 
ing used the term : and accordingly we find it in 
the Life of Constantine h and in the treatise against 
Marcellus \ written by Eusebius ; and in Origen's 
Commentaries upon Deut. xxii. 23 k . and upon 
Luke 1 . Socrates says, that it was used by Origen 
in the first volume of his Commentary upon the 
Epistle to the Romans : but the Latin translation 
of this Commentary by Rutin us, which is all that 



d See Prsef. Benedict, in Ori- 
gen. II. p. ii. 

e Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, 
who presided at the council, has 
these words : "Ot< koI vj @eo- 

tokgi; (pccvy k&i avroiq yeyove <Tvv/j8rj$ 
ro7q npo vj[Acov ayloiq nccrpucrtv, of 
Kocl en - ' opOfj Bavixu^ovTOLi niG-tzi, koci 
elq fievpo <7Ta<ri roTq dvcc naaav, 
enoc elfteTv, ttjv vii ovpavov, §e7v airjO'/jv 
akriQui; aitoffivai. Ep. ad Regin. 
f I. 2. 

g Tom. I. Concil. Hard. col. 
1329. Theodoret's words are 
particularly strong : tSj/ nd'Aai 
Kcti irponaXai i% opdo^o^ov iztar^ooq 
KtipvKuv Kara. t»;v airo<TTo\iKr}i> itapd- 

lodlV &€OTOK0V hitjCtiidvTCCV 0V0[Aa%€W, 



KOM <7U(TTeV€lV T7JV TOV KVp'lOV y.'qT6p(Z. 

Hser. Fab. IV. 12. vol. IV. p. 
245- 

» III. 43. 

1 II. 1. p. 32. 

k H. p. 39T. 

1 The word does not appear 
in the Benedictine edition of 
1 740, but the fragment which 
is published there, III. p. 979- 
80. is also published by Gallan- 
dus, IV. Append, p. 87 ; and 
after the words a-v^cpcova rS vlS 
(pdeyyeTai we are to supply rj 
'EKicrd^r ccva^tav iavTYjV Tvjq nap- 
ovataq rrj<; QeoroKOv Xeyovaa, aaitep 
Kai 0 'ludvj/vjs t5js itplq rov Xpiarov 
Tcapaa-rda-eat; k. t. A. 



108 IREN^US, A.D.185. 

remains, does not contain any indication of the 
word m . 

We have another instance of it being used in the 
time of Constantine by Alexander bishop of Alexan- 
dria, in a letter which he wrote to his namesake of 
Constantinople n . 

In the Disputation between Archelaus and Ma- 
nes °, which was held about the year 277? we find 
the words Dfaria Dei Genitrice ; and since the 
work, now extant, is merely a translation from the 
Greek, we may suppose that the word SeoroKov ex- 
isted there. Beausobre p would have us believe that 
Archelaus did not really use this expression, and 
that it is an interpolation : but he assigns no reason 
beyond his own opinion ; and upon questions of 
opinion Beausobre is a dangerous guide. 

Dionysius, who was bishop of Alexandria from 
247 to 264, in a work which he wrote a short time 
before his death, applies this title to the Virgin se- 
veral times <i ; and in one place he calls her literally 

V) [AYJTYjp TOV SeOV, p. 265 r . 

But Origen, as we have seen, had already used 
the term : and even before the time of Origen, there 
is reason to think that it had been adopted by Hip- 
polytus, who flourished about the year 220 s . 



m It has been thought that it 
existed there in I. 5. (IV. p. 

466.) 

n Theodoret. I. 4. p. 20. 

0 Published by Dr. Routh in 
the Reliquiae Sacrse. IV. p. 219. 

p Hist, de Manichee, vol. I. 
p. 1 IT. 

*J P. 2 1 .r, 238, 240, 245, 261, 
264, 274. 

r So Athanasius, in a work of 



which we have only a Latin 
translation, speaks of Deum 
paritura Maria. De Trin. et Sp. 
Sancto. vol. I. p. 974. 

s It is in a fragment pre- 
served by G. Syncellus, Chro- 
nogr. p. 219. Part of this frag- 
ment is given in the edition of 
Hippolytus referred to in this 
work, I. p. 272 ; but not the 
latter part of it, which contains 



IREN/EUS, A.D.185. 



109 



It is not improbable, that the original Greek of 
Irenaeus contained this word : and the passage quoted 
above, of which we have now only a Latin transla- 
tion, may have been ovt(o$ kcu avry) ha rov ayyeXiKov 
Xoyov evyyyeXOvj cog SeoTOKog ovcra. 

We may observe also, that Ignatius, who lived so 
much earlier than any of these writers, made use of 
an expression equally strong; " Our God Jesus Christ 
" was conceived by Mary 1 :" and Tertullian says, 
that " God suffers himself to be born in his mother's 
" womb u ." 

Thus we may trace the same idea, though not 
perhaps the same words, in regular succession, 
through the following writers ; Ignatius, Irenaeus, 
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius of Alex- 
andria, Archelaus, Alexander of Alexandria, Euse- 
bius : and of these we may observe, that Dionysius 
was pupil of Origen, as Origen was of Hippolytus, 
and Hippolytus of Irenaeus ; so that we might na- 
turally expect to meet with similar expressions in 
their writings x . 

The term SeoroKog, or Mother of God, could only 
have been used by those who believed in the highest 
sense of the doctrine that Jesus Christ was God. 
That God should have been born of a woman, seems 



the word QeoroKo;. It may be 
seen in Reliquiae Sacrae, II. p. 
215. In vol. II. of Hippoly- 
tus, p 32. there is another frag- 
ment, in Latin, which contains 
the word Deipara. 

1 'O yap Seo<; vjiaZv 'Irjcrovq o 
Xpicnot; €Kvo(popr,0'/i vivo Maptaci;. ad 

Eph. §. 18. p. 15. 

u Nasci se Deus in utero pa- 
titur matris. De Patientia c. 3. 
p. j 40. 



x Between the time of the 
council of Nice and the coun- 
cil of Ephesus, other Fathers 
used the term SeoroKoq. e. g. 
Athanas. Orat. III. c. Arian. 14. 
vol.1, p. 563. ib. 29. p. 579. ib. 
33- P- S 8 3- ° r at. IV. 32. p. 
642. De Incarn. 8. p. 875. 22. p. 
889. Cont. Apol. f. 4. p. 924. 
12, 13. p. 932. In Psalm lxxxiv. 
11. p. 1151. 



110 



IREN/EUS, A.D.185. 



so incomprehensible to our limited faculties, that 
some other form of conveying the same sentiment 
would have been chosen, if the early Fathers had 
not believed that Jesus was verily and substantially 
God. But being convinced of this doctrine, they 
felt no offence at the word: they did not seek to 
explain the mystery, but, finding it in the revealed 
word of God, they expressed it by a term which im- 
plied the mystery in its most inexplicable form, and 
left no room for their own belief to be called in 
question. 

I may close this discussion by observing, that the 
expression itself is almost literally to be found in 
the words of Elizabeth to Mary, (Luke i. 43.) 
" Whence is this to me, that the mother of my 
" Lord should come to me ?" The meaning which 
Elizabeth attached to the word Lord may be seen 
by comparing verses 25 and 45 of this chapter 7. 

Having finished the quotations from Irenaeus, I 
may observe, that Dr. Priestley seems entirely to 
have forgotten the writings of this Father, when he 
says, that Justin Martyr is the first Christian writer 
who adopted the doctrine of the permanent per- 
sonality of the Logos 7 - : by which he means, that 
till that time the Logos was understood to mean 
merely the word or power of God. But Irenaeus 
evidently interpreted the beginning of St. John's 
Gospel in the same manner that we do : he repeat- 
edly speaks of Jesus as the Logos ; which proves 

y Athanasius appears to have tqkgv Mapiaq, cV/c/o-nja-ei/ iv ayaX- 

understood the words of Eliza- Kicurei. §. 36. vol. I. p. 824. 
beth in this sense, when he says z History of early Opinions, 

in the Life of Antony, kcu q 'la- II. p. 46. and in many other 

oannfit yevQfAevtjq <p®yq$ itccpa ttjs @eo- places. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. Ill 



that he believed in the personality of the Logos ; 
and though the writings of Irenaeus are of a later 
date than those of Justin Martyr, yet his acquaint- 
ance with Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, makes 
it almost certain that the apostle used the term 
Logos in this sense. 

Clemens Alexandhinus. A. D. 194. 
The name of this Father, written at length, was 
Titus Flavius Clemens. It is disputed whether he 
was a native of Alexandria or of Athens ; but his 
long residence in the former city has given him the 
name, by which he is distinguished from Clement of 
Rome. From an expression in Eusebius a , he ap- 
pears to have been converted at an early age from 
heathenism. He became president of the Cateche- 
tical School of Alexandria about the year 190 ; and 
one of his hearers there was the celebrated Origen. 
Du Pin thinks that he did not die before the year 
220. 

The works which have come to us entire, or 
nearly so, as written by him, are, an Exhortation to 
the Gentiles ; the Pcedagogus, or Instructor, in 
three books ; and eight books of Stromata, or Mis- 
cellanies. There is also a short treatise, which seems 
unquestionably to be his, entitled, What rich man 
can he saved f Dodwell thought that all his works 
were written between the years 193 and 195. 

69. dementis Cohort, ad Gentes, c. 1. p. 6, 7. 

The object of this work of Clement is nearly 
explained in the title. He wrote it, that he might 
persuade the different nations of the world to be- 

a Prsep. Evang. II. 2. p. 6i. 



112 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



lieve the Gospel : and he accordingly gives in this 
treatise a summary of all that Christians believed 
concerning the Founder of their religion. Not far 
from the beginning of the work he has these words : 
" The Word therefore, that is, Christ, is the cause 
" of our original being, for he was in God ; and he 
" is also the cause of our well-being ; since this same 
" Word, who is alone both God and man, hath ap- 
" peared unto men as the cause of all good things to 
" us : by whom we are instructed in living well, and 
" conducted to eternal life. For, according to the 
" inspired apostle of our Lord, (Tit. ii.ll.) The grace 
" of God that bringeth salvation to all men b hath 
" appeared, teaching us that, denying ungodliness 
" and ivorldly lusts, we should live soberly, right- 
" eously, and godly, in this present world; looking 
"for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing 
" of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. 
" This is the new song c , the appearance, which has 
" now shone forth among us, of the Word who was 
" in the beginning, and preexisted ; the Saviour, 
" who was before, hath appeared lately : he hath ap- 
" peared, who is in Him who is d , because he is the 
" Word who was with God : the Teacher hath ap- 
" peared, by whom all things were made ; the Word, 
" who also in the beginning gave life when he form- 
" ed us, as the Creator, hath taught us to live well, 
" appearing as a Teacher, that he might afterwards 
" give us eternal life, as God e ." 

b I have coupled vaaiv avBpu- to listen to the songs of Sion. 
noiq with o-uTvjpiot; in the transla- d See p. 80. note, 
tion, rather than with eVc^avTj. e Ovjoq (1. alrtoq) yovv 0 Koyoq 

c He had before alluded to 0 Xpia-Toq kcu tov eivai itaXai VjpSq, 

the fabulous songs of Orpheus, \v yap iv &e$' kou tov 3 elvar w 
Amphion, &c and invited men inecpdw) ocvtipunois avroq ovrog 6 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194 113 

I have translated this passage at length, not only 
as containing such plain and repeated attestations of 
the divinity of Christ, but on account of the quota- 
tion from Titus ii. 13. It has often been said, that 
in these words of St. Paul, Jesus Christ is called the 
great God as well as our Saviour, though other in- 
terpreters refer the expression of the great God to 
God the Father. The passage is, " looking for the 
" glorious appearing of the great God and our 
" Saviour Jesus Christ;" irpoa-leyo^voi ryv hufyavaiav 
rvjS ^ofyg rov peyaXov Seov kou crcorypog vjfxcvv y ly]aov Xp- 
(ttov. In our authorized version, the words certainly 
do not necessarily imply that our Saviour Jesus 
Christ is the great God; but if we were to trans- 
late them, as we are equally authorized in doing f , 
" the glorious appearing of our great God and 
" Saviour Jesus Christ" it would be obvious to 
every reader, that the expression great God re- 
ferred to Jesus Christ «. 

It is surely not too much to say, that the reason 
for which Clement quotes the passage, as well as his 
commentary upon it, leads us to infer, that he gave 
this interpretation to the apostle's words. He says 
expressly, that our Saviour, who has appeared, is 



Aoyoq, o [xovoq cc^a, @eoq re kou 
avOpaMoq, divdvTav yfjuv amoq dyoc~ 
6av' nap ov to ev Zffiv e/<SiSaiXKo / /x,e- 
vqi elq aidiov ^ayv itapaTte^Ajno^eBa. 
Kara, yap tov Bemeaiov iKeivov tov 
Kvptov 'AttoVtoAoj', y %dpiq tov ®eov 
K. r. A. rovro ecrri to dapa to 
Kaivov, 7} inupdveia rj vvv iKhd^a- 
cra ev v\uuv tov ev dpy$ ovToq Kcti 
vpoovToq AoyoV iite^avq he evay^oq 
o icpoav 2aT^p* inecpdvy I ev tS ovri 
ccv, oti o Aoyoq, oq vjv mpoq tov Sew' 



Aihdo-KaXoq eTiecpdvrj, cp to, icdvTa 
dehrj^iovpyvjTai' Aoyoq, o kou to ^rjv 
iv dpyfi [/.era rov izXdcrai mapd- 
o-%av, u>q "b'fipiovpybq, to ev Zfiv ebl- 
ha^ev, ini<pc6ve}q doq diddarKaXoq, 'Ivor. 
to ae\ Zfiv vo-Tepov aq ®eoq xopyjy^o-r}. 

f Dr. Clarke allowed that this 
construction is grammatical. 
Scripture Doctrine, p. 88. N°. 
54i- 

s See Waterland, III. p. 128, 
&c. 

I 



114 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



God: so that if he did not actually understand 
St. Paul to call Jesus Christ the great God, he at 
least calls him so himself. 

Many scholars and biblical critics have contended, 
that the words of St. Paul ought to be translated as 
here proposed : and if we follow the rule which they 
have given h , that " when two or more personal nouns 
" of the same gender, number, and case, are con- 
" nected by the conjunction and, if the first has the 
" definite article, and the second, third, &c. have 
" not \ they all relate to the same person :" we shall 
be authorized in translating the following passages 
of the New Testament so as to present the strongest 
demonstration of the divinity of Christ. 

Eph. v. 5. in the kingdom of Christ, who is also 
God k . 

2 Thess. i. 12. according to the grace of our God 
and Lord Jesus Christ l . 

1 Tim. v. 21. before the God and Lord Jesus 
Christ m . 

2 Pet. i. 1. through the righteousness of our God 
and Saviour Jesus Christ n . 



h Home's Introduction, II. 

P-5°9-. 

1 This distinction, concerning 

the repetition of the definite 

article, may be illustrated by a 

reference to i Thess. iii. n. 

aitoq Se o @eo$ kou iMTrjp ^cov kou 
o Kvpioq v}[auv 'Ivjcrov^ ~Kpi<TTo<; Kccrev- 
Qvvou k. t. X. 

k 'Ev T7) fiocoi'helq. tov Xpio-Tov 
kou Qeov. The Homily in Nativ. 
Christi, falsely ascribed to Atha- 
nasius, gives a various reading 
not noticed by Griesbach, paai- 
Xe/a Kvplov kou @eou, and the text 



is quoted to prove that Christ 
is God. vol. II. p. 413-4. 

1 Kara, tvjv yjzpw tov ®€ov vjfxav 
kou Kvpfov 'Iqcrov 'Kpiaro'v. 

m 'EvwTTtOV TOV 0€OV KOU KvpiOV 

'Irjaov XpKTTov. 

n 'Ev SlKCtKHTVVYI TOV @€0U VjfAUV 

kou aarypaq 'IvjaoZ Xpia-Tov. Gries- 
bach gives some various read- 
ings in this passage ; but he does 
not mention that of the Synop- 
sis Scripture?, ascribed to Atha- 

nasiUS, iv tiKaioavvri tov Kvpiov rj(Jt,uv 
'I'/jcrov Xpiarov. vol. II. p. 129. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 115 



Jude 4. and denying our only Master, God and 
Lord, Jesus Christ °. 

I would observe also, that the text, Titus ii. 13. 
is very like to 2 Tim. iv. 1. where we read, " 7 
" charge thee therefore before God and the Lord 
" Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and dead 
" at his appearing?;" or, as we might translate it, 
" before the God and Lord Jesus Christ" &c. 
In this text the word appearing evidently belongs 
to Christ, and so we contend that it does in Titus ii. 
13. and in each case the appearing is coupled with 
the mention of God and Jesus Christ. The word 
€7ri(f>av6ia, appearing, is used five times in the New 
Testament. At 2 Tim. i. 10. it means the appear- 
ance of Christ in the flesh : but in all the other 
instances it means his second appearance to judge 



° Ka) TOV [AOVOV ^€0"KOTVjV @€0J> 
KOU KvplOV VjfAWV 'lv)<TQVV XptCTTOV Ctp- 

vovpevoi, where the propriety of 
applying these epithets to Jesus 
Christ, and not to God the Fa- 
ther, may be confirmed by refer- 
ring to the Second Epistle of St. 
Peter, which, as is well known, 
closely resembles the Epistle of 
St. Jude ; and in the parallel 
passage of St. Peter's Epistle, 

ii. I. we find rov ayopuo-avTa av- 
Tovq Seo-7T0T>jv apvovpevoi, where 
there can be no doubt that 
Secr7roT5}v relates to Christ. Atha- 
nasius certainly referred ^ea-wrvyv 
®eov to Christ, when he spoke 
of the Jews tov leo-noT^v koci ®€ov 
apvyjcrduevoi, ivpoa-KAivavTeq iccvTovq 
tS Bapafifip. In Psalm lxxvii. 9. 
vol. I. p. 1141. If the treatise 
deCommuni Essentia Patris. Filii 
et Spiritus Sancti be genuine, 
Athanasius expressly quotes the 



text to prove that the Son is 
called the great God. vol. II. 
p. 16. It is quoted with the 
same intent in the Homily in 
Nativitatem Christi, which has 
also been ascribed, but without 
reason, to Athanasius. Ib. p. 4 13. 
Epiphanius quotes the text a- 
mong many others which prove 
the divinity of Christ, Haer. 
LXXIV. 6. vol.1, p. 894. Theo- 
doret also evidently referred the 
words great God to Christ, Haer. 
Fab. V. 22. vol. IV. p. 298— 
300. Eusebius might be thought 
to allude to this text, when he 

Speaks of the eitupoLveioiq tov cruTyj- 
poq rj[/.ccv 'Iy]<tov XptcrTOu tov 0eov. 
Praep. Evang. II. 5. p. 69. 

P — hwitiov tqv &eov kou tov 

Kvpiov ^lrjcrov XpicrTov tov pekAovToq 

Kp'iVtiV "^VVTCCq KOU V€Kpoiq KOtTOt TT t V 

tmcpdveiav avTov. 

I 2 



116 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



the world, and is always applied to Jesus Christ, 
never to God the Father. 

The words in Titus ii. 13. are only quoted by one 
of the Ante-Nicene Fathers beside Clement of Alex- 
andria : and the first passage rather contains an 
allusion to them than an express quotation. Hip- 
polytus, in his book de Antichristo (c. 64.) says, 
66 What is left, but the appearing of our Lord and 
" Saviour Jesus Christ who is God from heaven^?" 
According to the argument of the Unitarians, we 
should refer the word Lord here not to Jesus Christ, 
but to God the Father ; which seems absurd, because 
God is mentioned afterwards. If therefore Hippo- 
lytus meant the word Lord to refer to Christ, it is 
probable that in Titus ii. 13. where the construction 
is similar, he would have referred the words great 
God to Christ ; and this probability is increased by 
his expressly applying the title of God to Christ in 
this place. In the last chapter of the same work he 
quotes the text thus : " looking for that blessed hope 
" and the appearing of our God and Saviour, at which 
" he will raise up those of us which are holy, and 
" will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father r ;" 
in which passage he seems undoubtedly to have in- 
tended the coming of the Son and not of the Father. 
At p. 261. he begins a homily with these words, 
66 All the creations of our God and Saviour are good 
" and very good s ." The Unitarians would trans- 

^ T/ TtepiXeiTrtrai, aXV vj r\ £nt- dyiovq "fj^uv <xvv avro7q evcppavd^cre- 

<pd,v€ia, rov Kvp'tov kou aaryjpoq 7][Aav tou, §ofa£o>v Uocrepoc. p. 33. 

'lyo-ov Xpi<rrov rov ©eov air' ovpoc- s Ylavrot y.ev Kizhu, kou KoCka. 

vav'y vol. I. p. 31. ^ouv to. tov ®€ov kou a-aTTipoq r\\t£>v 

r Upoa^xo^evQi; ry\v ^aKo^plav ^fAiovpy^jAocra. In Theophan. I. 

eXw/Sce kou inicpdveiciv rov ®eov kou p. 26 1. 
Ctorrjpoq rj[Awv, iv y dvafrr^aaq rovq 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 117 



late, " All the creations of God and our Saviour," &c. 
and according to the analogy of construction in Titus 
ii. 13. they must refer the term Saviour to Christ : 
so that if Hippolytus did not here call our Saviour 
God, he must at least have ascribed to him $v){Aiovp- 
yYjfxaTa, or works of creation, together with God the 
Father. It would perhaps not be going too far to 
say, that, except in passages which affect a point of 
doctrine, no person would think of opposing the con- 
struction which I am supporting. Who for instance 
would hesitate to apply the whole of the following 
sentence to one and the same person, rov acoTYjpa km 
Kvptov y][ACtiv 'irjcrovv Xp;orov rov Seov u or tyjv Kara rov <roo- 
rvjpa km Kvpiov YjfA&v I. X. rov vlov rov Seov OIKOVOfXiaV u . 

Dr. Routh, in his Reliquiae Sacrse, (vol. II. p. 26.) 
has advanced many convincing arguments for the 
construction here maintained. 

70. dementis Cohort, ad Gentes. c. 1 . p. 8. 

Shortly afterwards he quotes Phil. ii. 6. "who 
66 being in the form of God thought it not robbery 
"to be equal with God," and instead of adding 
simply, as St. Paul does, but made himself of no 
reputation, or divested himself, (which would be a 
better translation of the original,) he says, " but the 
" compassionate God divested himself x ;" by which 
words it is plain that Clement applied to God what 
is said of Christ, or in other words he considered 
Christ to be God. 

Since the words in Phil. ii. 5-11. have been ex- 
plained away by the Unitarians, who contend that 
there is nothing in the passage which shews the 

4 Euseb. Prsep. Evang. I. I. x 'EKevooa-ev Se iavrov o (piXoiKTip- 
p. 4. {auv ©eo<j. 

u lb. 3. p. 6. 

13 



118 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



divinity or preexistence of Christ, I shall bring to- 
gether some of the passages in the works of the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, where allusion is made to this 
text : and I shall undertake to prove the following 
points : 

That they understood the whole passage to speak 
of two humiliations of Christ ; the first, when he 
divested himself of his divinity and assumed the 
human nature ; the second, when being in our hu- 
man nature he became obedient to death. 

This is the general meaning of the whole passage. 
With respect to the several parts of it, I shall 
endeavour to shew, 

1 . That being in the form of God means, that 
he was essentially and substantially God. 

2. That he thought it not robbery to be equal 
with God means, that he did not tenaciously adhere 
to his equality with God : and equality means here 
a real equality, not a resemblance. 

3. That he made himself of no reputation means, 
that to outward appearance he emptied or divested 
himself of his Godhead. 

4. That the two clauses, he took upon him the 
form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of 

men, should be taken together, as explaining each 
other. They should be translated, he took upon 
him the form of a servant, being made in the like- 
ness of men : i. e. the form of a servant, which he 
assumed, means our human nature. 

5. That the exaltation, which followed his humi- 
liation, was merely his returning to the glory which 
he had before. 

In shewing that the Ante-Nicene Fathers attached 
this meaning to each of the respective clauses, I shall 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 119 



do little more than bring quotations from their writ- 
ings to establish each point separately. The quota- 
tions will be arranged chronologically according to 
the time in which each writer lived ; which will 
enable us to see whether the Fathers differed from 
one another in their interpretations of this passage, 
or whether they all agreed in viewing it in the 
same light. 

1. The words being in the form of God, as 
applied to Christ, mean that he was essentially and 
substantially God. 

This we have already seen to be asserted by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, when he says, in allusion to 
this text, that " the compassionate God divested 
" himself." 

In another place he says, speaking of Christ, 
" Our Instructor is like to God his Father, whose 
" Son he is, without sin, irreprehensible, and with- 
" out passion in his soul : God in the form of man, 
66 undefiled, ministering to his Father's will, God 
" the Word, who is in the Father, who is on the 
" right hand of the Father, and in form also 
" God v." 

Tertullian argues, that the form of a servant must 
mean that Christ was really a man, because being 
in the form of God means that he was really God. 
He is arguing here against the Marcionites, who 
allowed the divinity of Christ, but denied the reality 
of his human body. " The Marcionites think that 
" the apostle supports their opinion about the sub- 

y 'Eolkej/ 6 Haidayuyoi; rjjxSv rS pari SiaKovoq, Aoyot; ®eo$, 6 iv rS 
IlaTpt avrov t8> ©ey, ovnep icrrtv Harp), 6 e/c Se|<Sv rov Uccrpo^ <rvv 
vlo<; avafAccpTyjTOt;, aveKihrptTO^ kou kou t$ crj^/^a-n ®eo'<;. Pifcd. 1. 2. 
airaOvji; rrjv y^vyflv' ®eo<; iv avOpvirov p. 99. 
(T X 1 7i t * aTt » apcpaj'TO?, TtarpiKS deXvj- 

I 4 



120 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194 



" stance of Christy that there was merely an appear- 
<e ance of flesh in Christ, when he says, that being in 
" the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be 
" equal with God, but exhausted himself, taking 
" the form of a servant, not the reality : and in the 
" likeness of man, not in man : and being found a 
" man in figure, not in substance, i. e. not in flesh : 
" as if figure and likeness and form were not also 
" parts of substance. But it is well that elsewhere 
" (Col. i. 15.) he calls Christ the image of the invi- 
" sible God: and does he here also place him as in 
" the form of God ? In the same manner Christ will 
<e not be really God, if he was not really man, when 
" in the form of man. For reality must be excluded 
" in each place, if the form and likeness and figure 
" are to be ascribed to a mere appearance. But if 
" he was declared to be in the form and image, as 
" being the Son of the Father, who is really God, he 
" was also really found to be a man, in the image 
" and form of man, as being the Son of man ; for he 
" used the word found intentionally, i. e. most as- 
" suredly a man : for that which is found, is proved 
" to be. So also he was found to be God by his 
" power, as by his flesh to be man z ." 

That Marcion himself interpreted this text of 

z It is not necessary to tran- really and truly God, when in 

scribe this long passage in the the form of God. adv. Marc, 

original, The reader will re- V. 20. p. 486. Athanasius uses 

member that Tertullian is not the same argument (c. Apol.II. 

here proving the divinity of 1. vol. I. p. 940.) ao-wep y [Aopffi 

Christ but his humanity, and tov Seov to t:'h4\pwpa rvjq tov Xoyov 

the argument will be equally Beor^roq voehcu, ovraq kou y popcpr} 

valid if we reverse it. In the rov hovXov, ^ voepa, rfo avQpuitwv 

language of Tertullian, if Christ ewxaaeas <pv<rt<;, alv tSj opyaviiaj 

were really and truly man, when Karaardcrei ouo'Aoye7ra,t. 
in the form of man, he was also 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 121 



God descending from His divine nature, is evident 
also from the following remark of Tertullian. Mar- 
cion believed in two Gods, one of whom was supe- 
rior to the other : and Tertullian says to him, " If 
" God, and indeed the higher God, lowered the 
" greatness of His majesty by such humility, that 
" he became subject to death, even the death of the 
" cross a " 

Hippolytus observes ; " After that the only-be- 
" gotten Word of God, who is God of God, divested 
" himself according to the scriptures, lowering him- 
" self voluntarily to what he was not, and clothed 
" himself with this inglorious flesh L " 

Origen, after having noticed and admired the an- 
swer of Abraham to his son, 64 God will provide 
" himself a lamb for a burnt-offering" thus con- 
tinues, " For the Lord himself provided a lamb for 

" himself in Christ and He himself humbled 

" himself even unto death 0 ;" where it is plain that 
Origen considered the person who humbled himself 
to be the same person who is called God by Abra- 
ham. 

In another place he says ; " If any one therefore 
" despising the humility of Christ, who for our sakes 
" when he was God became man, and humbled him- 
" self even unto death d ," &c. &c. 

a Si enim Deus, et quidem ^w.7reo-%eTo E Com. in. Gen 

sublimior, tanta humilitate fasti- II. p. 29. 

gium niajestatis suae stravit, ut c Ipse namque sibi Dominus 

etiam morti subjieeret, et morti ovem providebat in Christo— — 

cruris . ib. II. 27. p. 395. et ipse se humiliavit usque ad 

b 'E-s-et^ 0 [Aovoywri*; tov Qeov mortem, in Gen. Horn. VIII. 

Aoyoq, ®eo; vivdpy^av ix ®eov, /ce- §. 6. p. 82. 

nevaKtv eavTov Kara ra<; ypacpcu;, d Si quis igitur Christi humi- 

KaQtit; ide'AovTYi<; eavrov tlq cnrep ovk litate contempta, qui propter 

fy, Kat t>jj/ alo^ov Tavr'/jv <rdpKa nos cum Deus esset homo factus 



122 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



Speaking of the Transfiguration, he says ; " You 
" will ask whether, when he was transfigured before 
" those who were taken up by him to the high 
" mountain, he was seen by them in the form of 
" God in which he existed before : since to those 
" who were below he had the form of a servant, 
66 but to those who followed him after six days to 
" the high mountain, he had not that, but the form 
"of God'? 

Novatian quotes the whole passage, and has a 
dissertation upon it : and at those words, being in 
the form of God, he says, " If Christ were merely a 
" man in the likeness of God, he would not have 
" been spoken of as in the form of God : for we 
" know that man is made after the likeness, not 

" after the form of God And he was truly said 

" to be in the form of God ', since he himself is over 
" all things, and has divine power over every crea- 
" ture, and is God like his Father, though he ob- 
" tained this from his Father, that he should be God 
" and Lord of all, and God after the form of God 
" the Father, begotten and produced by Him f ." 



est, et humiliavit se usque ad 

mortem in Jud. Horn. III. 

§. i. p. 464. ^ 

e ZvjT^creiq Se el oVe [AereuopcpaOvj 
eimpoaBev toov vir avTOv uvayfiiv- 
tccv €i$ po viprjXov opoq, a(p6rj ainoic, 
iv y-opcpy ®eov, r\ virf\pyjt ird'Aai' wq 
roi<; ,w.€V Kara 'l%wv t\v SouXov pop- 
(pr]V) ro7q 8e aKo'kov6'ti<7a<riv avrcp 
pera, e£ v]y,epa,<; elq to v\prjXov opoq, 
ovk iKetvrjv, aXka t\j tov &eov. In 
Matt. torn. XII. §. 37. pag. 
558.. 

f Si homo tantummodo Chri- 
stus, in imagine Dei, non in 



forma Dei relatus fuisset: ho- 
rn inem enim scimus ad imagi- 
nem, non ad formam Dei factum 

Et merito in forma pro- 

nuntiatus est Dei, dum et ipse 
super omnia, et omnis creaturae 
divinam obtinens potestatem, et 
Deus est exemplo Patris ; hoc 
ipsum tarn en a Patre proprio 
consecutus, ut omnium et Deus 
esset, et Dominus esset, et Deus 
ad formam Dei patris ex ipso 
genitus atque prolatus. De Tri- 
nitate, c. 17. p. 717. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194 123 



Dionysius of Alexandria says ; " But the form of 
" God is His Word, and Wisdom is acknowledged 
" to be the Son of God, and God himself, being al- 
" ways one person and one substantial person S." 

In another place he says ; " He that endured the 
" cross thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 
" who is the Word of the Father, and our Lord 
" God, the Lord of hosts, who was lifted up upon 
" the cross h ." 

This same Father has a long dissertation upon 
the whole passage, which will be given more at 
length, when we come to quote from him. He 
says at p. 254, " By Christ being in the form of 
" God, is meant that the Father is in His Son Christ 
" the Word, and Christ in the Father V At p. 260. 
" God disfigured himself, and heard the prayer of 
" His suppliants, and He bowed the heavens and 
" came down (Psalm xviii. 9.) to free us, being free, 
" as God, and Lord of glory, Jesus Christ k ." 

The letter of the council of Antioch (which was 
held A. D. 269.) contains the following passage : 
" The same God and man Jesus Christ was foretold 
" in the Law and the Prophets, and is believed in 
" the whole church under heaven to be God who 
" divested himself 'from being equal with God 1 ." 

S C H rov ®eov fiopcprj 6 Aoyoq 1 - irZq 6 Tlarvjp iv rS vlS 

avrov, Ka\ a~0(pia vioq &eov, Kai &eoq avrov XpifTToj Aoya, Ka) o Xpiaroq 

avroq cofAoXoyqrai, kv Tipocruiiov uv iv r§ Harp), o iv [Aopcpri ®eov virdp- 

de), Ka) [/.ia iTtoaraaiq inpoa-uncov. x av ' 

p. 209. k e Eavrov yap 6 Geoq eW&Smjo-e, 

11 Ofy dpnay^ov Yjyvjcraro to el- Ka) inrjKOVcre rvjq herjaewq ruv iKerav 

vat icra @e£> 6 aravpov vTCOjxelvaq' oq avrov' Ka) eKhivev ovpavovq, kui 

i<rriv avrov y.ev rov irarpoq Aoyoq, Karefirj, i^eXeadai vipaq, iXevBepoq 

Ka) vloq, TjfAuv he @eoq Kvpioq, 6 in) av, ccq ®eoq, Ka) Kvpioq ryq hojj'/jq, 

aravpov v-fyooBe)q Kvpioq aafiaad. 'kqaovq Xpiaroq. 

p. 229. 1 e O avroq Qeoq Ka) avdpumoq 



124 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



2. I have not met with the phrase ci>x apiray^ov 
yyeiotiou in the writings of any of the Fathers of the 
three first centuries. But in the letter written by 
the churches of Vienna and Lyons, in which they 
recount their sufferings and persecution m , there is a 
passage which may explain the sense in which they 
understood the words. Speaking of their brethren, 
who had been persecuted, and who though they had 
not actually died were called martyrs, they say of 
them, " They were so entirely imitators of Christ, 
" who being 1 in the form of God thought it not 
" robbe?y to be equal with God, that though they 
" had attained to that glory, (of martyrdom,) and 
" not once or twice only but several times had borne 
66 witness, (^aprvpYjaavreg,) yet did not call themselves 
" martyrs, nor suffer us to address them under that 
" name." Now since these men were literally mar- 
tyrs or witnesses, but gave up their right to such a 
title ; and in doing so considered themselves to be 
imitators of Christ, who thought it not robbery, &c. 
they must have conceived that Christ gave up his 
right to something, or laid aside something, which 
he was actually in possession of. This was his being 
in the form of God, or being equal with God. I 
therefore understand the words he thought it not 
robbery, he. to mean, he was not ostentatious of 
this equality, he acted as if he had it not, he laid it 
aside. We may perhaps trace the same idea in 
those words of our Saviour, He that findeth his life 
shall lose it. (Matt. x. 39.) A person, who finds a 

'Ivja-ovi; X/>«7Tos itpoecpiqrevero iv vo^a elvai Icra, @e$. Rel. Sacr. II. 

kou irpocpyTait;, Koci iv ttj iKKhtpiq, p. 473* 

T7j vtio rov ovpavov ■ndcrrj Treit'vnevTou m Euseb. V. I. &C. Rel. Sacr. 

®eo<; ( uev Kevaxrat; eavrov aito rov I. p. 292. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 125 

treasure, eagerly catches at it, apnayplv yyehcu tov 
fyaavpo'v but our Saviour is evidently speaking of a 
person who clings tenaciously to his life., preferring 
it even to the gospel. The expression is perhaps 
taken from those places in the Old Testament, where 
a man's life is said to be given for a prey: e. g. 
Jer. xxxviii. 2. xxxix. 18. xlv. 5. The Septuagint 
translates elg evprj^a. 

We cannot learn much from the translation of the 
words by the Latin Fathers : for they generally ren- 
der them literally as we do. Tertullian has non ra- 

pinam existimavit esse se cequalem Deo u , and 

pariari Deo °. Cyprian p and Novatian % both read, 
Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se cequalem Deo. 
But Rufinus, in his translation of Origen's Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, says r , that 
the words mean, non sibi magni aliquid deputat 
quod ipse quidem cequalis Deo, et unum cum Patre 
est : i. e. he did not think it any great thing that he 
was equal with God. I conceive this to be the true 
meaning of the words, which had acquired a sort of 
proverbial use among ancient writers s . Christ being 

n Adv. Prax. c. 7. p. 504. with the following: "kp^ay^a 

0 Adv. Marc. V. 20. p. 486. to pvfiev iiroi^a-ctTO t\ 'kpcTaKV}. Ar- 
et de Resurrect. Carnis. c. 6. sace eagerly caught at what was 
p. 329. said. Heliod. iEthiop. VIII. 7. 

P Test. II. 13. p. 290. tov BdvccTov apizaypa, Oe^evoi rrj<; 

1 DeTrinitate, c. 17. p. 717. t£v hvao-efiSv poyp-qpia.^ thinking 
r V. 2. Vol. IV. p. 553. death a great prize on account 
3 c 'Apnaypa. is oftener used of the savageness of their wicked 

than apnayiMv in this phrase, enemies. Euseb. H. E. VIII. 12. 

and it has been contended that olov apnaypd n t\v iitccvofov noir)- 

dpitayiAov yyeio-dai has not the crdpevoi, thinking their return 

same meaning as apnccypa, ij<ye*- home a great prize, ib. de vita 

<rQai. But it is not probable Const. II. 31. ./Elian uses a si- 

that St. Paul would have ob- milar phrase, iya yap ryv crvv 

served this distinction, and we avrotq anpayiAoo-vvyv kcu tov t5j$ 

may compare his expression ^q-vyjiaq epocTa, kou dpnda-aiy.1 ewt- 



126 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



by nature equal with the Father did not think highly 
of this, as he would have done, if he had been raised 
to such equality from an inferior state, but he even 
laid it aside 1 : he divested himself of it ; which is 
the proper translation of the word eKtvcaaev, and is 
an allusion to the pleroma or divine fulness which 
St. Paul mentions, Eph. i. 23. Col. i. 19. ii. 9- I shall 
therefore proceed to the third point, which was pro- 
posed to be proved : for Christ's divesting himself 
was a consequence of his not thinking it robbery, 
i. e. not thinking it any great thing to be equal with 
God: and if we can ascertain what the Fathers 
understood by his divesting himself it will also ex- 
plain what they understood by he thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God. 

3. Irenaeus says, that the apostles of the Gentiles 
had to teach that there was one God, " and that 
" His Word, who by nature was invisible, became 
" palpable and visible among men, and humbled 
" himself unto death, even the death of the cross 11 ." 



tyccuuv, I should think myself 
very lucky if I could share their 
ease and tranquillity. V. H. III. 
17. Josephus has the expression, 
TYjV iKealctv dpvdrravreq, eagerly 
catching at this entreaty. B. J. 
ii. 18, to. We may also com- 
pare the following expression 
in Latin : — non enim aut gravi- 
tati senatus congruebat omnia 
simul deferre, aut bono principi 
raptum ire tot simul dignitates. 
A good prince ought not to shew 
a great eagerness to enjoy so 
many dignities at once. Lam- 
prid. Al. Sev. t. In all these 
places we may perceive the 
same sense which Rufinus ex- 



presses by magni aliquid depu- 
tare. 

I The Pseudo-Athanasius ex- 
plains the phrase thus : 0 vloq tov 
®eov kcu Seoq fiovhvfieiq Kotra^vcti 
ewi rrjq <ySj? kgu aapKccB^vai, ovk i<f>o- 
fiYjdv) Kctrczfiyjj/ou tov d^ia^aToq' ov 
yap ei%ev e£ dpnayrjq t\v BioTt\xa, 
waitep riq e%ei ivp<xy(^tx e| dpizayriq, 
kcu (pofieiTai ScizoAevai avro. I con- 
ceive this writer to have been 
certainly mistaken in his allu- 
sion to the word dpnayph, but 
his commentary shews that the 
preexistence of Christ, as God, 
was supposed to be declared in 
this passage. 

II Et hujus Verbum, naturali- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 127 

Origen observes, " That which came down among 
" men was in the form of God, and out of benevo- 
" lence divested himself, that he might be compre- 
" hended by men : but the change was not to him 
" from good to evil, for he did no sin ; nor from 
" honour to dishonour, for he did not know sin ; nor 
" from happiness did he come to unhappiness : but 
" he humbled himself, and yet was no less happy, 
" even when he humbled himself for the benefit of 

" mankind. But he who healed the wounds of 

" our souls by God the Word that was in him, he 
" was incapable of receiving any harm. But if the 
" Word, the immortal God, by taking a mortal body 
" and soul, seems to Celsus to be changed and trans- 
" formed, let him know, that the Word continued 
" substantially the Word, nor does it suffer any of 
" the things which the body and soul suffer ; but 
" coming down once to that which was not able to 
" look at the dazzling brightness of his divinity, 
" becomes in a manner flesh, speaking corporeally, 
" until he, who receives him as such, being shortly 
" exalted by the Word, is able to contemplate his 
" own, and if I may so say, his primary form x ." 

ter quidem invisibilem, palpabi- kavrov plv irccitdvao-ev, ovlh V tjt- 
lem et visibilem in hominibus toj> fA.aKa.ptoq y\v> kou ore avfjuptpo'v- 
factum, et usque ad mortem de- raq tu yevei yjpccv eavrov tranuvov. 

scendisse, mortem autem crucis. o he ipav^ata. ruv xpv^Sv 

IV. 24. 2. p. 260. Z)[A.£v Oepanevuv did rov iv avrcp 

x To he KarafiefirjKoq dq dvBpw- Aoyov &eov, avroq itdat\q KaKiaq 

izovq iv (*op(pfl &eov VTV(\p%e' kou hid dirapdheKToq yjv' el he ko.) au^a Ovvj- 

(pihavBpbmlav lavrov eKevuaev, iva tov Kat ipvxyv dvBpaiciwp/ dva\a(3ajv 

Xapvjdvjvat iit dvBpuituv hvvi^By. ov o dBdvaroq ®eoq Aoyoq hoKe7 t3 

h'/jirov h' ayaBov elq KaKOV yeyovev KeXcp aKkdrieaBai kou ^taTikdrz- 

avrS [AeTaftoXri, dfAapriav yap ovk TeoBai, {xavOaveTco on o Aoyoq rij 

€TiotYj(rev' ovb Ik Kakov dq alcry^pov, ovala fAevcov Aoyoq ovhev y}v Ttdc-yjzi 

ov yap eyvu df^aptiav' ovhe i!j evhai- w izdcryjei to aru^a, v\ y \pv%fl' <xvy- 

(Mviaq rfhQev dq KaKohaiy^oviav' aXX' KaTafiatvuw h' eV0' ore t£> hvva- 



128 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



Dionysius of Alexandria says to the heretic Paul 
of Samosata ; " How can you say that Christ is 
" merely a conspicuous man, and not very God, 
" worshipped by every creature together with the 
" Father and the Holy Ghost, who became incarnate 
" of the blessed Virgin Mary the mother of God ? 
" for he submitted for our sakes to be born of a 
" woman : whence also he submitted to suffering 
" for our sakes, having divested himself, and 1mm- 
" bled himself unto death, even the death of the 
" cross, being equal with God?" After which he 
says, " He thought it not robbery to be equal with 
" God, means — that he was not like those who by 
" virtue and labour, and trouble and contests, take 
" the kingdom of God by force : it was not thus that 
" the very Christ Jesus, who was not made perfect 
" by the exercises of virtue, gained his equality with 
" God : but His glory covered the heavens, and 
" the earth was full of His praise, and His bright- 
" ness was as the light: (Hab. iii. 3, 4.) and he him- 
" self who truly existed eternally in the Father bears 
" witness, saying, / am the light of the world : 
" (John viii. IS.) i. e. Lord of the world, having in 
u himself the Father and the quickening and Holy 
" Spirit. He divested himself: he was not 



f/.lvu> avrov rdq papfAapvyaq Ka) rrjv 
"ha\mpor*qva rr\q Oeioryrot; (3K{btetv t 
olove) trap!; ywerai, cra>[^ariKa<; Xa- 
"kov [/.evoq, eaq o roiovrov avrov irapa- 
Setjapevoi; Kara, fipayj) vi:o rov Ao~ 
yov [AereaptC,6[/.evoi; §vvy]6rj avrov Ka) 
r\v (tv ovrooq ovo^daoo) uporjyov^e- 
vqv (Aopcpriv Oeda-aaBai. C. Cels. IV. 
§.15. p. 510. ^ 

y Hu<; (tv Aeyeiq avBpcoitov Kar- 
e^afperov rov Xpurrov, Ka) ov @eov 



ovra. aXrjOwov, Ka) nvpoa-Kvvov^evov 
itapd itaa-'fic, Krlcreooq crvv Harp) Ka) 
ayiq Ylvevpari, rov crapKecBevra e/c 
rvjq dylaq itapBevov, Ka) QeoroKOv 
Maptaq\ &*' rj^oiq yap Karele^aro 
yevecrdai eK yvvaiKoc,' oBev Ka) to 
ivdOoi; vnep v][aZv Kare^e^aro, Kevco- 
(raq eavrov, Ka) raneivuvac, eaq 6a- 
vdrovy Bavdrov Se crravpov, l<ra Seov 
vxdp%€i (1. vnapxav.) p. 2IO-II. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 129 



" contained in us by leaving the Father : God for- 
" bid ! but I will quote to you the words of God 
" himself, which say, / and the Father will come 
" and make our abode with him, (John xiv. 23.) 
" that believeth on me. — — Christ Jesus, who 
" divested himself, having in himself the Head, 
" which is the Father, for the head of Christ is 
" God, (1 Cor. xi. 3.) hath shewed strength with 
66 his arm, and exalted the humble, (Luke i. 51.) 
" that the Highest might be contained in them, and 
" might dwell in us on account of his mercy and 
" goodness wherewith he loved us. This is the 
" divesture of the right hand of the Most High. So 
" that the divesture does not imply his change : God 
" forbid ! but a renovation to us by his divesture, 
" which he who divested himself gave to us. The 
" Holy Spirit which was poured out on all flesh 
" remains full : as does the holy and vivifying blood, 
" which was shed from the depth of the divine side : 
" Jesus Christ who divested himself continues full, 
" who poured out the incorruptible blood : he con- 
" tinues to live, who poured out his blood which 
" gives us life z ." 



z P. 254- 0^% dpi:ay\Kov k.t.X. 
rovro Xeyei, on ov Kadditep ot di' 
dper^q kou novav kou OXiipecev kou 
dyavccv dp-KaCpvai r\v (3acriXeiay rov 

®eov oz5% ovraq o av Xptaroq 

'Irjcrovq, ov novoiq dperyq reXeiaBeiq 
eKephocve ro elvai icra QeS. dXX' 
€KoiXv\pev k. r. X. kou paprvpei av- 
roq 0 dXrfiaq del VTtdp%av iv ra 
warpi, Xeyav, iya dpi ro <pwq rov 
KocrjAov' oq i&ri deo-TroTYjq rov Koapov, 
e%wv iv eavrS) rov izarepa kou to 
X^aoicoiov kou Kvpiov Ylvevpa' dXX' 

eavrov iKevacrev p. 255- ov Xi- 

nuv rov narf.pa, i^copr^Brj iv v)[MV' pv) 



yevoiro' dXX* avrov rov Seov o~oi 
irapao-ryjcro.) cjxovyv, Xlyovaav, on iya 

Kai o irarrjp iXevaopeBa k. t. X. 

p. 256. 0 Kevao-aq avrov 'Xpiaroq 
'Irjaovq, ey^av iv iavrS ry)v KecpaXrjv 
rov irarepa, Kecpa'Ay yap yipicrrov 6 
®eoq, ino'iycre Kpdroq k. t. X. Iva 
p'/}6rj iv avroiq 0 vxpio-roq, koi ivoi- 
K'/jo-yj iv v)[mv Sta r\v avrov (piXav- 
Bpamiav Kai dya6or r /jra, riydnvjcrev 
vjfAaq' avry] v) Kevoxnq rv)q detjidq rov 
v\pl<rrov' Sa-re ovv 7) Kevaaiq ov rpo- 
7T7jv avra <T'/]paivei, py) yevoiro, dXX* 
y)f/.Tv avaKaivio~fMV hid ryq Kevacreaq 
avrov, v)q iyjxp\aaro y)[Mv 0 Kevaxraq 

K 



130 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



Peter of Alexandria says, " The Word was made 
" flesh by the Will of God, and being found in 
"fashion as a man was not bereft of his divinity. 
" For this was not done that he who was rich, by 
" becoming poor, might give up his power and 
" glory ; but that he might submit to death for us 
" sinners a ." 

After these quotations, I cannot help noticing the 
following assertion of Dr. Priestley, who tells us, 
" That Christ emptied himself of his former glory 
" and power, and did not sustain the world during 
" his abode on earth, is quite a modern opinion ; 
" and on that account only can never be received as 
" the original and genuine doctrine of Christianity b ." 
It would be charitable to think that Dr. Priestley 
had never studied the early Fathers ; but his own 
repeated assertions forbid us to justify his mistate- 
ments on these grounds. 

4. We might think that Tatian alluded to this 
text, and conceived the form of a servant to mean 
the form of man, when he says, as quoted at p. 62. 
that <s God was born in the form of man" 

Clement of Alexandria says, " The Word him- 
" self is a mystery revealed, God in man, and man 

" God but since the flesh is a servant, as Paul 

" bears witness, how can any one with reason adorn 
" a servant ? For that the flesh is in the form of a 

eavTov' enyjeofievov to Hvevfxa to Toq. ot5Be yap iva' Tyq hvvdueaq avrov 

ayiov 67ri iracrav crdpKa pevei TvXyjpeq, tj ho^'/jq TeXeiaq airoary UTayevuaq 

kou eKyjtQev to ayiov koi ^aonoibv itKovaioq uv tovto iyeveTQ' aXX' Iva. 

alpa e/c fiuBovq Tyjq 9e'tKvjq nXevpaq' Ka) tov Qdvarov virep Yju.au tuv 

//civet TvX^prjq b Ktvuaaq eavTov 'lyo-cvq d[/.apTaXav dvate^YjTai. Rel. Sacr. 

~Xpi<TToq iKyeaq to a<p9apT0V k. t. X. TII. p. 344* 

a ©eA^aTi @eov 6 Aoyoq <rapl; b History of early Opinions, 
yevopevoq, Ka) cry^^mxi evpeOe)q uq I. p. 59* 
avOpvnoq, ovk aneXt'Kpfr/) rvjq QeoTy- 



CLEMENS ALEX ANDRXNUS, A.D. 194 J 31 



" servant, the apostle tells us, speaking of the Lord, 
" that he divested himself] taking the form of a 
" servant : he calls the outward man a servant, be- 
" fore that the Lord became a servant, and bore our 
" flesh : but God hath himself freed the flesh, having 
" suffered with it : he hath rescued it from corrup- 
" tion, and the deadly and bitter slavery, and clothed 
" it with immortality c ." 

Hippolytus makes the river Jordan say, in answer 
to the question, What ailed thee 9 O Jordan, that 
thou ivast driven back f " We saw the Creator of 
" all things in the form of a servant, and not know- 
" ing the mystery of the incarnation, we are driven 
" back through fear d ." Hippolytus is treating of 
the baptism of Christ in the river Jordan. 

In another place he says, that David " wrote pro- 
" phetical Psalms upon the true Christ our God, and 
" evidently declared all the things which happened 
" to him in his suffering from the Jews, how that 
" Christ humbled himself and put on the form of 
" the servant Adam e 5 " &c. And again, after quoting 



c Aoyoq yap avroq yvuT'^ptov iy- 
<paveq, Seoq iv dvBpaitco, Kai o dv- 

Bpwnoq @eo?' dovXrjq he ov<Tr\q 

Tvjg aapKoq, KaBaq koi 6 WavXoq yap- 
Tvpei, naq dv Tiq eiKoTaq t\v Bepd- 
•naivav Koayay], npoayayov hiKyv ; 
on ydp dovXov yop(f)Yjv to crapKiKov, 
in) tov Kvpiov (pYja-w 6 anoaToXoq, 
on eKevaaev eavTov yopcprjv dovXov 
Xafiav' tov eKToq dvBpccnov hovXov 
it poor e m av, icpiv vj dovXevaai Kai crap- 
KOipop^aai tov Kvptov' o Se <rv(ATiaBv)c; 
060? avToq rjXevBepacrev t\v <rdpKa' 
Tyq cpBopaq koi tovXelaq Tvjq BavaTYj- 
<popov ku) niKpaq ocnaXXd^aq, ttv 
dcpBapcriav TtepieBrjKev aiuy, dyiov 
TOVTO ttj (TapKi KOI aitiOTfiToq KaX- 



Xuitiaya TC€ptBe)q, ttjv dBavaalav. 

Paed. III. i. p. 25 1. 

d avTa Se ditOKpiBivTa, el- 

nov, tov ndvTuv KTiaTYjv iv yopcprj 
dovXcv eidoyev, Kai to yv<TT^piov Tyjq 
oiKOvoutaq dyvorjo-avTeq, diro Tyjq dei- 
Xlaq iXavvoyeBa. Hom. in Theo- 
phan. c. 2. I. p. 262. 

e OvToq xpdXXav Tivd irpocprjTiKvq 
€iq tov dXrjByj XpiaTov tov 0eov rjtAuv 
il/.zXahrjcrev did tov dyiov nvevyaToq, 
itdvTa Ta VTio 'lovdaiccv eiq avTov iv 
tS ird&et yivoy.eva cra(p£q KaT'/jyyei- 
XaTO, iv a XpiTToq 0 Twneivauaq 
eavTov Ka) ttjv yopcpyv tov dovXov 

'Addy. ivbvadyevoq COtlt. Jud. 

C. 2. II. p. 2. 

K 2 



132 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



the 69th and other Psalms as spoken in the person 
of Christ, he says, " Christ uttered all these prayers 
" incarnately as man, being very God. But, as I 
" said before, it was the form of the servant, which 
" said and suffered these things f ." 

Origen quotes the text, Phil. ii. 6, 7, and observes, 
" He took the form of a servant, and though he was 
" of an invisible nature, as being equal to the Fa- 
" ther, he yet took a visible appearance, and was 
" found in appearance as a man s." And in another 
place he says, " To come, when applied to him, 
" does not mean to change his place, but that he 
" appeared, who before was not seen : for being in- 
" visible, by being the image of the invisible God, 
" by taking the form of a servant, and being born, 
" the Word was seen as flesh, that by appearing 
" thus he might lead us by this perception to see 
" also his glory, the glory of the only-begotten of 
" the Father h ." And again, " The scriptures some- 
" times call him a servant, and sometimes Son : a 
" servant^ on account of the form of a servant, and 
" as of the seed of David ; but Son of God, on ac- 
" count of his first-born essence i ." 



f Tavta Ttdvia Xpicrroq oIko- 
vopiKajq ooq avQpccrcoq 7jL'%eT0.> Seoq av 
aktfitvoq. S AXX' uq (pBdaaq elnov, tj 
[Aop<prj rov tovXov \v ravra Xeyovtra 
Ka) icda-^ovtra. ib. C. 4. p. 3. 

s Formam namque servi ac- 
cepit, et cum ipse invisibilis sit 
naturae, utpote sequalis Patri, 
habitum tamen visibilem susce- 
pit, et repertus est habitu ut 
homo. In Gen. Horn IV. §.5. 
P- 7*-; 

k To yap iX9e7v avrov ov totcov 
e<rr)v apuipai, dXX' iitupav/jvai, 
wporepov ov% opupevov' vndpyjuv yap 



aoparoq, ra elvat et/cwv Seov aopdrov, 
[Aopcpvjv SovXov Xa(3uv, Ka) yevopevoq 
0 Aoyoq arap% U(p9vj, 'lv ovrco (pave)q 
Xeipayayrjarri ypaq §ia ravrt\q ttj$ 
Karavorjaeaq elq to kou rvjv do^ay 
avrov 6edo~a<j8ai t ho^av k. t. X. in 
Psalm cxviii. 27. p. 795. 

1 At ayiai irpocpyreiai oizov {/.ev 
dovXov, ottov Se vlov avrov dvayopev- 
overt' dovXov y.ev, did ryv hovXov fxop- 
(prjv, Ka) tov eK cncepparot; AajS/8" 
vlov Qeov, Kara, rrjv itparoroKov 
avrov dwd^iv. In Joan. X. §. 4. 
p. 165. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 133 



Novatian's words are perhaps the most express : 
" He was content to take the form of a servant, i.e. 
" to become man and the substance of flesh and 

" body at which time also he divested himself, 

" while he did not refuse to take the human weak- 
" ness of our nature. But if he had been merely 
" born as a man, he would not by that have divested 
" or emptied himself : for a man, when he is born, 
" is increased, not diminished. For when he begins 
" to be that which he could not have had when he 
" was not, he is not made empty, but is rather iti- 
" creased and enriched. But if Christ is made empty 
" by being born, by taking the form of a servant, 
" how is he merely a man ? of whom it would be 
" more correct to say, that he became rich when he 
" was born, not that he became empty k ." 

5. The following passages may explain what St. 
Paul meant, when he said of Christ, that " God 
" hath highly exalted him P (Phil. ii. 9.) 

Hippolytus says, " The expression grown up \ 
" signifies the progress of the glory naturally inhe- 
" rent in him, and its return to what it was from 



k Ut formam servi susciperet 
contentus fuit, hoc est, homi- 
nem ilium fieri et substantiam 
carnis et corporis quo tem- 
pore se etiam exinanivit, dum 
humanam conditionis fragilita- 
tem suscipere non recusavit. 
Quoniam si homo tantummodo 
natus fuisset, per hoc exinanitus 
non esset : homo enim nascens 
augetur, non exinanitur : nam 
dum incipit esse quod, cum 
non esset, habere non potuit, 
ut diximus, non exinanitur, sed 
potius augetur atque ditatur. 



Ac si Christus exinanitur in eo 
quod nascitur, formam servi ac- 
cipiendo, quomodo homo tan- 
tummodo est ? de quo verius 
dictum fuisset locupletatum il- 
ium esse tunc quum nasceretur, 
non exinanitum. De Trinitate, 
c. 17. p. 717. 

1 Instead of " Joseph is a 
''■fruitful bough,'' which we 
read at Gen. xlix. 22. Hippoly- 
tus translates, Joseph is a son 
grown up, which he applies to 
Christ. He follows the LXX. 

K 3 



134 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



" the beginning For after that the only-begotten 

" Word of God, who is God of God, divested him- 
" self according to the scriptures, lowering himself 
" voluntarily to what he was not, and clothed him- 
" self with this inglorious flesh, he is afterwards said 
" to be highly exalted, and receives the name which 
" is above every name, according to St. Paul's words, 
" as if on account of his human nature he had it 
" not, and almost like a favour. But in real truth 
" it was not a gift, as of things which originally did 
" not naturally belong to him ; very far from it : it 
" should rather be considered a returning and recur- 
" rence to what belonged to him originally and sub- 
" stantially, and so as not to be lost. Therefore he 
" said, when he had incarnately submitted to the 
" meanness of the human nature, Father, glorify 
" me with the glory which I had, &zc. (John xvii. 5.) 
66 for he was always in divine glory, existing toge- 
" ther with his own Father before all age and time 
" and the foundation of the world m ." 

Origen uses the same language in commenting 
upon John xiii. 31. " Now is the Son of man glori- 
"Jied, and God is glorified in him" His words 
are, " The glory, which followed death for man's 



m 'Eire&v} o ^ovoyevvjq tov ©eou 
Aoyoq ®ebq vndpyjzv e/c &eov K€K€- 
vcok€v eavrov Kara, rdq ypa(j)dq, Ka- 
6e)q iOeXovTyjq eavrov elq oirep ovk yjv, 
Ka) rvjv cctoqov Tavrrjv adpKa yj^- 
■7r€o-%€T0, Xomov Ka) VTrepvipov&Bou 
XeyeTat kou aq ovk 'iyjcv did to dv- 
Opoo-Kivov povovovy) Ka) iv ydpnoq 
\Kolpa, Xa^dvei to ovo/xa to VTcep 
itav ovofxa, Kara to)v tov paKapiov 
YiavXov (ponvrjv. 'AaX' tjv to xprifj-a 
Kai to dXrfieq oil hotriq aq iv dpyjri 
rav ovk ivovruv avra <pvo~iK&q, noX- 



Xov ye Ka) de7' vooito 8' dv [/.aXXov 
dvacpofr'/jo-iq Ka) dvadpofAT] npoq to 
iv apxy Ka) ovcricchaq Ka\ avwirofiXi}- 
raq virdpyov avra. Toiydproi Ka) 
€<pa<TKev o ryq dydpooTror/jToq to <Tf/.i- 
KpoirpeTteq vnohovq oiKOVopiKcoq, Hdrep, 
ho^ao-ov /Ae tSj do^-rj f elyov, Ka) rd 
i^yjq' de) yap r\v iv ho^Tj Oeoitpeiiei 
ra thiu) cvvvndpyjccv yevv/jTopi itpo 
navroq aiavoq Ka) yjpovov Ka) ryq tov 
kq<t[aov KaTa(3oXyq. In Gen. II. 

p. 29. 



CLEMENS ALEX AN DRIN US, A.D. 194. 135 



" sake, did not belong to the only-begotten Word, 
" who by nature cannot die, nor to Wisdom and 
" Truth, and all the other divine attributes which 
" are in Jesus ; but to the man, who was also Son 
" of man, born of the seed of David according to 

66 the flesh It was the same, I imagine, whom 

" God hath highly exalted when he became obe- 
" dient unto deaths even the death of the cross. 
" For the Word, who in the beginning was God 
" with God, does not admit of higher exaltation : 
" but the higher exaltation of the Son of man, which 
" happened to him when he glorified God in his 
" death, was not by his being different from the 
" Word, but the same with it ; for if he that is 
" joined to the Lord is one Spirit, so that it can 
" no longer be said of such an one and of the Spirit, 
" that they are two ; how should we not much ra- 
" ther say, that the human nature of Jesus became 
" one with the Word, when the Word, ivho thought 
" it not robbery to be equal with God, was highly 
" exalted, and yet remained in his own exaltation, 
" or rather was restored to it, when he was once 
" more with God the Word, ivho is God and 
" man n ?" His words are equally plain and more 



n HXyv y tiia, rov virep avQpuTcyv 
Qdvarov §of<ss ov rov (M) necpvKoroq 
duoBv^crKeiv ^ovoyevovq Aoyov, kcu 
crocpiaq, Ka) aX'/jBeiaq, Ka) oara dXXa 
elvai Xeyerai rSv iv rS 'IrjtTOv Beia- 
repav, dXXd rov avBpaitov, oq rjv kcu 
vloq rov dvBpuTzov, yevofxevoq iK triteo- 
lAaroq Aa/3i§ to Kara. erapKa * 
rovrov S 5 olpai koi 6 ®eoc, vTvepvilace 
yevo^evov vh^koov k. r. X. b yap Ao- 
yoc, iv dpyrj upoq rov ®eov ®eo£, ovk 
inibe-Xfirai to vizepvxpccdyjvai. C H 
vnepvipooo-H; rov vlov rov dvBpwuov 



yevofxevy) avra §o%d<ravri rov ®eov 
iv ra eavrov Bavdru, avr'/j fATr 
Keri erepov avrov elvai rov Aoyov, 

dXXd rov avrov avra' izoic, ovy) 

[/.aXXov ro avBpar.ivov rov "'Ivj&ov 
l^era, rov Aoyov Xeyoipev yeyovevai 
ev, vn;epvtl>a[Aevov ylv rov dp- 
nayiAov riyqcra^evov ro elvai lea 
®e&, ^evovroq $e iv to? Iticp v-fyei, tj 
Ka) anoKaB icrra^evov iii avro rov 
Aoyov, ore itdXiv Yjv vpoq rov ®eov, 
©eat; Aoyoq ocv Ka) dvBpconot; ; Iil 
Joan. XXXII. §. 17. p. 446. 

K 4 



136 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



concise when he says, thai " He divested himself, 
" coming down hither, and having divested himself, 
ce he received again those things from which he 
" divested himself, having divested himself volun- 
" tarily °." 

Novatian writes thus: " He received a name which 
66 is above every name, which we understand to be 
" no other than the name of God. For since it be- 
" longs to God alone to be above all things, it follows, 
" that that name is above every thing, which belongs 

" to Him who is above all things, i. e. God For 

" if Christ were not also God, every knee would not 
" how at his name, of things in heaven, and things 
" in earth, and under the earth, visible and invi- 
66 sible ; nor would every created thing be subject 
" or inferior to a man, since they would have re- 
" membered that he before had been a man. Where- 
" fore since Christ is said to be in the form of God, 
" and is proved to have divested himself, so as to 
" be born according to the flesh, and is declared to 
" have received that name from the Father which 

66 is above every name and all this is asserted 

" to contribute to the glory of God the Father, it 
" follows, that he is not only man, because he be- 
" came obedient to his Father, even to the death of 
" the cross; but from these very circumstances, 
" which declare the divinity of Christ, he is proved 
" to be the Lord Christ Jesus and God p." 

0 Kcvao-ai; eavrov iKd^ave nd- quam nomen Dei. Nam quum 

Xiv ravrcc atf Sv znkvaaw sccvtov, Dei sit solius esse super omnia, 

Ikcov Kev&crac, eavrov. Horn. I. in consequens est, ut nomen illud 

Jerem. p. 129. sit super omne, quod est ejus, qui 

p Accepit enim nomen quod super omnia est, Dei. Neque 

est super omne nomen, quod uti- enim si non et Deus esset Chri- 

que non aliud intelligimus esse, stus, omne se in nomine ejus ge- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 137 



Methodius gives his interpretation of the text 
thus : " The Son of God came from the fulness of 
" the Godhead into life : for being divested, and 
" having taken the form of a servant, he was again 
" fully restored to his own perfection and rank. For 
" being diminished in himself, and dissolved in his 
" own parts, he was again restored from his own 
" diminution and his own parts to his own fulness 
" and magnitude, never having been diminished so 
" as not to be perfect V 

These are some of the passages in which the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers allude to the text, Phil. ii. 6. 
&c r : and when the reader has compared them to- 
gether, I would ask the simple question, whether 
he thinks that the Fathers agreed with the Unita- 
rians in saying, that " this text admits of a fair 
" interpretation consistent with the proper humanity 



nu fleeter et, coelestium, terre- 
strium et infernorum, nec visi- 
bilia aut invisibilia, aut rerum 
omnium omnis creatura homini 
esset subjecta sive substrata, 
quse se ante hominem esse me- 
minisset. Ex quo dum in for- 
ma Dei esse Christus dicitur, et 
dum in nativitatem secundum 
carnem se exinanisse monstra- 
tur, et dum id accepisse nomen 
a Patre quod sit super omne no- 
men exprimitur, et hoc ip- 

sum in gloriam Dei Patris suc- 
currere asseritur, consequenter 
non ex illo tantum homo est, 
quia obediens Patri factus est 
usque ad mortem, mortem au- 
tem crucis, sed ex his etiam re- 
bus superioribus divinitatem 
Christi sonantibus, Dominus 
Christus Jesus et Deus mon- 



stratur. c. 17. p. 717. 

(1 elq tov vlov rov &eov, airo 

rov nrX'/jpcopaToq Tvjq 6eoTT t Toq elq tov 
(3!ov iXyXvOoToq. KevccBeiq yap koi 
Tr;v fAop^qv tov dovXov npoo-Xafioov, 
elq tt}v kavTov TeXeiorrjTa itdXiv 
dve-nX r fipaO'fj Ka\ tvjv d^iav' uvtos 
yap iv eavTa u^iK^vvOeiq, Ka) iv 
roiq eavTov pepeciv avaXv6e\q, e/c 
Tvjq iavrov u^iKpoT^Toq koi tuv eav- 
tov [AepZv elq tt/v av/jLTtX^puicriv i:a- 
Xiv Trjv iavrov Ka) to peyeOoq kut- 
€<TT'q, ovfienoTe tov TeXeioq elvai ueia- 

Belq. Sympos. p. 115. 

r Of thePost-Nicene Fathers, 
who have noticed this text at 
any length, see Athanasius,Orat. 
I. c. Arian. 40. vol. I. p. 444. 
Epiphan. Ancor. 45. vol. II. 
p. 50. Euseb. de Eccles. Theo- 
log. I. p. 94. 



138 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



" of Jesus Christ s ?" The Unitarians understand the 
text to mean — that Jesus Christ being endued with 
the power of working miracles, so as to resemble 
God, did not lay claim to this power as his own by 
right, nor ostentatiously display it for his own ad- 
vantage ; but voluntarily submitted to the labours 
and the indignities and the punishment of a slave. 
He appeared like any other mortal, and at length 
was crucified; wherefore God has made him supe- 
rior to all former prophets, that all mankind of every 
condition and degree should be taught by Jesus 
Christ the worship of the true God f . 

Whether this was the sense in which the Fathers 
understood the passage, the quotations given above 
may serve to shew. The great difference between 
the two interpretations is this : The Unitarians un- 
derstand the whole passage to relate to the conduct 
of Christ while he was upon earth : we conceive 
that it speaks of two humiliations : one, when the 
Son of God left the bosom of his Father, to take 
upon him our human nature ; the second, when, 
being found in fashion as a man, he submitted to 
die upon the cross. In addition to the former quo- 
tations, I may adduce Cyprian as conceiving this to 
be the general meaning of the passage, when he 



s Belsham's Calm Inquiry, 
P-93- 

1 Improved Version of the 
New Testament. Belsham's 
Calm Inquiry, and his Trans- 
lation of St. Paul's Epistles. 
Mr. Belsham's translation of the 
Words ofy dpnayiAOV vjy^craTO to 
Uvui la-a SeS is unquestionably 
wrong. He renders them, — 
did not peremptorily lay claim 
to this resemblance of God. But 



the article to prefixed to elvai 
la-a &€$ shews that this equality 
was something which he al- 
ready actually possessed, not 
something to which he only 
made a claim. The Improved 
Version is not chargeable with 
this error. The phrase may be 
compared with that of Origen, 
avBpumo$ yeyoi/at; ovk aire^aXe to 
elvai Kvpioq b ®€o'<j. See N°. 23 I . 



CLEMENS ALEXAND11XNUS, A. D. 194. 139 



brings it as one of the testimonies to prove " that 
" Christ was to come humble at his first advent u ;" 
and at N°. 284. there will be found another quota- 
tion from Cyprian, which, if it does not expressly 
allude to the present text, at least contains the same 
doctrine which we are endeavouring to deduce from 
it. Clement of Rome also, the fellow-labourer of 
St. Paul, who is mentioned under that title in this 
very Epistle to the Philippians, might be thought 
to have had the apostle's words in view, when he 
said, as quoted at N°. 6. " Christ belongs to the 
" humble minded, who do not exalt themselves over 
" his flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of 
" the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of 
" splendour or of pride, although he might have 
" done so, but humble." 

I cannot conclude this long discussion better, than 
by giving the meaning of the passage in the words 
of Milton, who as an Arian would certainly not have 
been overzealous to support the divinity of Christ. 

Because thou hast, though throned in highest bliss 

Equal to God, and equally enjoying 

Godlike fruition, quitted all, to save 

A world from utter loss ; and hast been found 

By merit more than birthright Son of God, 

because in thee 

Love hath abounded more than glory abounds ; 
Therefore thy humiliation shall exalt 
With thee thy manhood also to this throne. 

All Jc?iees to thee shall bow, of them that bide 
In heaven, or earth, or under earth in hell. 

P. L. III. 305. 

u Testimon. II. 13. Quod humilis in primo adventu suo veni- 
ret. p. 289. 



140 CLEMENS ALEXANDIUNUS, A. D. 194. 



71. dementis Cohort, ad Gent. c. 1. p. 9. 
Speaking of John the Baptist, he says, ee John the 
" herald of the Word — exhorted them to prepare 
" for the coming of God the Christ x ." This asser- 
tion of the divinity of Christ is very plain, since it 
evidently refers to the words spoken by John in the 
wilderness : and it also enables us to illustrate two 
passages in the New Testament, Matt. iii. 3. and 
xi. 10. 

Matthew iii. 3. as well as Mark i. 3. and Luke 
iii. 4. quote Isaiah xl. 3. thus, " Prepare ye the way 
" of the Lord, make his paths straight." In the 
Hebrew it is, " Prepare ye the way of the Lord, 
" make straight in the desert a highway for our 
66 God" St. Luke also gives the remainder of the 
quotation, " and all flesh shall see the salvation of 
" God" which, though different from the Hebrew, 
agrees with the Septuagint. In these words of 
Isaiah it is God, Jehovah, for whom a way is to be 
prepared : but the evangelists make John to have 
fulfilled the prophecy, when he came to prepare the 
way for Jesus Christ. It follows therefore, as Cle- 
ment says expressly in the present quotation, that 
Christ is God. 

The other passage is Matt. xi. 10. " Behold, I 
" send my messenger before thy face, which shall 
" prepare thy way before thee." This is a quota- 
tion from Malachi iii. 1. which Clement may also 
have had in view, when he said, that " John ex- 
" horted them to prepare for the coming of God the 
" Christ." In Malachi it is, " / will send my mes- 

x 'O jw,ev ^ladvvfjq o Krjpvi; rov yivto-Qai elq ®eov rov 'Kpia'rov napov- 
Aoyov ravrr} mapeKukei kroiy.ovc, alav. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 141 



" senger, and he shall prepare the way before 
" me :" i. e. the messenger was to prepare the way 
before God: for it is God, Jehovah, who speaks, 
(ver. 6.) All the three evangelists agree in saying 

who shall prepare thy way before thee, i. e. 

before Christ ; so that the evangelists considered 
Christ to be the same with God. Commentators 
have been perplexed to account for the difference 
between the original prophecy, as delivered by Ma- 
lachi, and the words given by the three evangelists : 
but there seems no occasion for our trying to re- 
concile them. The evangelists probably quoted from 
memory in this case, as they certainly did some- 
times : and if they had no other notion of Christ, 
but that he was God, it would be indifferent to 
them whether they represented God as saying, be- 
fore me, as speaking of himself, or before thee, as 
speaking of Christ. They did not intend to make 
any alteration in the words, and they knew that 
they were making no alteration in the sense. Thus 
the evangelists, as well as Clement, tell us, that 
the person, before whom John was sent to prepare 
a way, was God, our Saviour Jesus Christ. 

72. dementis Cohort, ad Gent. c. 9. p. 72. 
Having mentioned some of the exhortations in 
the New Testament, by which Christ and his apo- 
stles invited men to receive the Gospel, he adds 
these remarkable words ; " Are you so secure, or 
" rather so incredulous, and will you not be per- 
" suaded either by the Lord himself, or by Paul, 
" even when he entreats you for Christ's sake, and 
" taste and see that Christ is God y ?" This testi- 

y pjre acvra 7rei8o^evoi tS iwep Xpia-rov leo^vcc, yevaecrGe, kou 

Kvpla), pyre rep Hav\q>, kou rain a. \dtre on XpicrTO£ o Seoq; 



142 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



mony is valuable, not only as giving the sentiments 
of Clement himself concerning the divinity of Christ, 
but as conveying to us the important fact, that in 
his opinion St. Paul openly exhorted men to believe 
in Christ as God. 

The latter words are an evident allusion to Psalm 
xxxiv. 8. O taste and see that the Lord is good ; 
yevuaaOe kou USere on xpvjVTOg o Kvpiog : which passage 
is referred to in 1 Peter ii. 3. and we must not sup- 
pose that, in Clement's quotation, Xpio-ros, Christ, 
is put for xpv]o-To$, good, by mistake. In two other 
places z , Clement quotes the same words, and in 
each he says, taste and see that the Lord is Christ. 
The early Christians were fond of this play upon 
the words, and of remarking, that Christus (Christ) 
and Chrestus (good or meek) so nearly resembled 
each other. Justin Martyr says, " As far as appears 
66 from the name which is objected against us, we 
" are most meek :" (y^^crroTaToi a :) and again, " we 
66 are accused of being Christians : but it is not right 
" that what is meek should be hated h ." Tertullian 
alludes to the resemblance thus : " The word Chris- 
" tian is derived from anointing : but when you 
" pronounce the word improperly, it is derived from 
" suavity or benignity c ." Theophilus makes use of 
a different resemblance, and says d , " I acknowledge 
6e that I am a Christian, and I bear this name which 
" is beloved by God, hoping to be serviceable (evxpvj- 
" (jtos) to God." It is probable, that Christus and 
Chrestus differed very little from each other as pro- 

z Psed. I. 6. p. 124. Strom. c Apol. c. 3. p. 4. see Lac- 



V. 10. p. 685. 

a Apol. I. 4. p. 45. 



b lb. 



tant. IV. 7. p. 287, 

d Ad Autol. I. i. p. 338. and 
still more at length p. 345. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 143 



nounced by the ancients ; and Suetonius certainly 
speaks of direst us when he meant to name our Sa- 
viour e . 

73. Clement is Cohort, ad Gent. c. 10. p. 84. 
Equally, or even more forcible, is the following 
exhortation ; " Believe, O man, in him who is man 
" and God : believe, O man, in him who suffered, 
" and is worshipped, the living God : believe, ye 
" that are enslaved, in him who was dead : all ye 
" men believe in him, who alone of all men is 
" God f ;" of which words it is only necessary to re- 
mark, that they exclude every other interpretation 
or inference, but that which makes Jesus Christ to 
be verily and substantially God : he who was man, 
who suffered and died, is to be worshipped as the 
living God. 

In the next quotation Clement again speaks of 
Christ as being worshipped : and at p. 311. he ad- 
dresses a prayer to the Word, as to God s. At 
p. 851. he says, " We are commanded, that we 
" ought to worship and honour him, convinced that 
" he is the Word and Saviour and Governor, and 
" by him the Father, 11 " &c. When we find Clement 
thus expressly asserting that Christ is to be wor- 
shipped, we should remember, that in many places 
he protests against all creature-worship. At p. 59. 

e Claud. C. 25. A Disserta- £5»*n. i^iarevcrare, ol hov'Aoi, Tffl 
tion upon the words Christus veKpw' icdvreq avQpuiroi, izta-reva-ocre 
and ChrestUS was published by fAOva rS 'nd.vruv a>0pa>iruv ©eat. 

Michael Rossal. See also Hu- e Paed. III. c. ult. 
etius Demonstr. Evang. Prop. 11 'Zifieiv he heiv eyKehevopeQa. kou 

III. §. 20. Kortholt. in Pagano Tippv rbv airly, kou Aoyov ccorvipd. 

Obtrectatore, p. 713. re avrov kou yyeuovoi elvai neurBtv- 

f Y\.i<rrevaov, ccvOpuire, ctvOpaiza req, kou hi avrov rov Tlarepa—- 

kou ©ea' nta-reva-ov, avOpaire, ru Strom. VII. J. 
nadovTi, kcu TcpocKwav^evu) ®ea 



144 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.194. 



after condemning the idolatry of the heathen, he 
says, " I long for the Lord of the spirits, I seek after 
" the Lord of the fire, the Creator of the world, God 
" who gave to the sun its light, not after the works 
" of God i ." At p. 809. he says, that " the first 
" commandment taught the Jews to abstain from 
" the idolatry of created things, placing all their 
" hope in Him who was truly God :" and that the 
second commandment taught them " not to give the 
" name of God to things that were created k ." If 
Clement really held these sentiments, how could he 
worship Christ, and yet believe him to have been a 
man created by God ? 

We have already seen, p. 65, that Melito also 
spoke of Christ as an object of worship. Tertullian 
must also have held the same doctrine, when he 
says, " This patience of the body recommends us 
" when we are praying, strengthens us when we 
" are deprecating ; it opens the ears of Christ our 
" God 1 ." In another place he says, " The kingdom 
46 and name of Christ is extended every where, is 
" believed every where, is had in reverence by all 
" the nations enumerated above, reigns every where, 
" is worshipped every where m ." Origen observes, 
that the cave was still shewn at Bethlehem, " in 
" which Jesus was born, who is worshipped and ad- 

' Toy Kvpiov toov irvevpaTav itoQa tiones affirmat, haec aures Chri- 

ov ra epya. tov ®eov. Cohort, sti Dei aperit. De Patientia c. 

ad Gent. c. 6. 13. p. 147. 

k acpia-Tavrai vvj<; tZv ye- m Christi regnum et nomen 

vvjTuv elhaXoXocrpiccq jtxij&e ivt- ubique porrigitur, ubique credi- 

(pepeiv to peyoLh&ov Kparoq rov Qeov, tur, ab omnibus gentibus supra 

oTvep ia-Ti to ovopa. — liii tu yevyra enumeratis colitur, ubique re- 

Ka\ ixuraiac. Strom. VI. 1 6. gnat, ubique adoratur. adv. Ju- 

1 Haec patientia corporis pre- deeos, c. 7. p. 189. 
cationes comniendat, depreca- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 145 



" mired by the Christians n ." He also asserts, that 
<c the Christians abhor worshipping any thing else 
" than God who is over all, and the firstborn of 
(e every creature, who is His W ord and God 0 :" 
and again, " Christ is to be worshipped on account 
" of the Word of God that is in him p." Cyprian 
tells us, that " God the Father has commanded that 
" His Son should be worshipped V Dionysius of 
Alexandria uses the very strong expressions, that 
" Christ is to be worshipped by every creature with 
M the Father and the Holy Spirit r :" and " that the 
" multitude of the blessed spirits above worship 
" Christ s ." Lastly, Arnobius informs us of the 
fact, that Christ " was worshipped with daily sup- 
" plications V' and u worshipped in the highest de- 
" gree u ." 



n 'Ej> Tw aTTTjXala rovr/p o vtto 
Xpieriavcov Ttpoa-Kwov/xevot; kou Bccv- 
{Aa^o^voq yeyivvqrou 'lyicrovq. Cont. 

Cels. I. 51. p. 367. 

0 — — eKxpeito^ivccv ccKko n ae- 
(3eiv itapoc rov eiti <xcL<ti ©eov, kou 
tqv TtpoororoKOV Ttd<T'/]t; KTiaeaq Aoyov 

avrov kou @eov. Contra Cels. VII. 
c. ult. p. 744. 

P 'O Xp<C7T0£ IZpOtTKVVYjTOi; TQV 

iv avrS Aoyov ®eov. In Ps. XC1X. 
5. p. 780. Notwithstanding 
these expressions, Dr. Priestley 
tells us, that " Origen, in a 
" large treatise on the subject 
" of prayer, urges very forcibly 
" the propriety of praying to 
" the Father only, and not to 
"Christ:" from which he ar- 
gues, that "in his time peti- 
" tions to Christ were unknown 
" in the public assemblies of 
" Christians. 1 ' (History of early 
Opinions, I. p. 37. see also III. 
p. 419 ) This negative argu- 



ment is surely overthrown by 
the positive evidence of Origen 
himself. See also another pas- 
sage from Origen at N !) . 205. 

•i Pater Deus praecepit Filium 
suum adorari. De bono Pati- 
entise, p. 255. 

r w:pocrKVVQvy.€Vov nocpa. nd- 

(TYiq KTicrecoq crvv JJocrpl, kou dyla 
nvev[/.a,Ti. P. 2 11. 

s Tlov Se Aeyei, ov npoa-Kwe? vj 
t£v dva dylav itvevfAocrav n'kyiQvq. 
P. 244. 

t He represents the heathens 
objecting to the Christians — 
" et Deum fuisse contenditis, 
" et superesse adhuc creditis, et 
" quotidianis supplicationibus 
" adoratis." I. p. 20. 

u Inficiaturos arbitramini nos 
esse, quam maxime ilium a no- 
bis coli, et praesidem nostri cor- 
poris nuncupari? I. p. 24. We 
may add the words of Athana- 
sius, in a work written before 



146 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 

These are some of the places in which the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers speak of religious worship being 
paid to Christ : and they surely are sufficient to de- 
cide the fact of such worship being paid, however 
some persons may question the propriety of paying 
it. We are at present concerned in investigating 
the fact : and we shall perhaps pause before we ac- 
cuse all the Fathers of the three first centuries, of 
either not understanding the first principles of their 
religion, or wilfully perverting them. Though Eu- 
sebius wrote rather later than the period, which I 
have prescribed for this work, his testimony is valu- 
able, as that of a man who was suspected of Arian- 
ism ; and he says, " that all nations had become dis- 
" ciples of Christ, who is God, the Word, and ac- 
" knowledge that they worship him as God x :" and 
again, " wherefore we have learnt to honour, and re- 
" verence, and worship him alone, as Lord, and Sa- 
" viour, and God y. M Dr. Priestley urges it as a very 
strong argument against the divinity of Christ, that he 
was not worshipped by the early Christians ; whereas 
they must have worshipped him, if they had believed 
him to be God z . If the examples given above have 
any weight, we may turn Dr. Priestley's argument 
against himself, and conclude, that the early Chris- 
tians did believe Christ to be God, because they paid 

the Arian controversy arose, x O'lnueq ©eov Aoyou our a rh 
probably about the year 319: Xpio-rlu ^^aBriKore^ aq ®eou npoo-- 

r\u [A,ev ray elftaXau heKTihaiyouiav KvueiuavrovoiAoXoyovurai.DemOllSt, 

KocTaki^Ttdvova-iv ol auQpconoi, iic) 8e Evang. VIII. I. p. 377- 
tov Xpt<rrou Karacpevyovui, kou ©eof ^ A<o tea) riy.au kcu aefitw koi 

avrov npoGKvvovvreq. De In earn. npoaKvusiu youou avrou, ola Kvpiou Kai 

46. vol. I. p. 88 ; and again, %u Toorvjpa Kai ®eov, yeyaO^Kayeu. De 

§e i^Xeva^ou itrravpayiuou, rovrou Eccles. Theol. I. IO. p. 69. 

upoa-Kvi/ova-i XptTrw, ®eov avrh o[aq- z History of early Opinions, 
"koyovureq. Ib. 53. p. 93-4. I. p. 40, &C. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.I). 194. 147 



him religious worship. If the testimonies of the 
Fathers upon this point are not thought sufficient, 
we have the evidence even of a heathen, that the 
Christians worshipped Jesus Christ. I allude to Lu- 
cian, who lived in the second century, about the time 
of Clement of Alexandria : and he says of the Chris- 
tians, that they " denied the gods of the Greeks, 
" and worshipped their crucified teacher, and lived 
" according to his laws a ." Porphyry also, who was 
such a violent opponent of Christianity, at the end 
of the third century, in a work which is now lost, 
quoted some oracles which had spoken favourably 
of Christ, and makes this remark upon one of them ; 
" Here it was said that he was a very religious man, 
" and that his soul, like that of other persons, be- 
" came immortal after his death : and this the Chris- 
" tians in their folly worship b ." We may form our 
own opinions concerning these oracles, which were 
received as genuine by Porphyry : but that the 
Christians of his day were conceived by him to wor- 
ship Christ, is a fact which cannot be denied. 

74. dementis Cohort, ad Gent. c. 10. p. 86. 

Having appealed to the astonishing progress which 
the gospel had then made in the world, as a proof 
of its divine origin, he says, 66 For the Lord could 
" not have accomplished so vast a work in so short 

" a time without divine Providence the Lord, 

" who in person was depised, though in reality 
" worshipped ; he who was truly a Purifier, a Sa- 

a 'Enedav anal TTapa^ccvreq oi fiiaari. De Morte Peregini. 
Xpia-Tuzvoi 6€0vs [A€V tov<; 'EkMjviKOvq b . . . %v aefieiv dvoovvraq rohq 
anapvyo-uvTcct, rlv auao-KoXovi- Xpiartavovc Apild Eus. Dem. 
cr^ivQv eKeTvov aocpiarTYjV avrav npocr- Evange III. 6. p. 134* 
KvvuvTi, kou Kara rovq iKeivov vopovq 

L 2 



148 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



" viour, and Placable c ; the divine Word, who was 
" truly and most manifestly God, who was equal to 
" the Lord of the universe, because he was His Son, 
" and the Word was in God d ." The expression of 
Christ being truly God, ovtu$ Beog, is the more re- 
markable, because it is one which Clement in seve- 
ral places e applies to God the Father, styling him 
the only real God, fxovog ovrug 6eoV- 

75. dementis Pee da go g. 1. I. c. 5. p. 112. 
The object of this chapter is to shew, that God 
considers us all as children, both in providing for us, 
and in teaching us. Clement also produces those 
passages in which Jesus himself is called a child} 
particularly that of Isaiah ix. 6. where the child that 
was to be born is said to be Wonderful, Counsellor, 
the mighty God, the everlasting Father: after 
which magnificent prophecy, 'Clement very justly 
exclaims, " O the mighty God ! O the perfect 
" Child ! the Son in the Father, and the Father in 

" the Son John bears witness to this child, 

" JBehold the Lamb of God! For since the scrip- 
6t ture calls infant children lambs, it calls God the 
« Word, who was made man for us, who was will- 
" ing in all things to be like unto us, the Lamb of 
" God, the Son of God, the Child of the Father f ." 

c These were three epithets %ioq, 6 6e7oq Aoyoq, b (pavepuraroq 

of Jupiter ; and I have endea- ovTaq Seoq, b rS Leo-nory tuv okcov 

voured to give the meaning of i^io-a6e)q, on \v vloq avTov, koi b 

Clement, which is, that they Aoyoq \v iv tS 0eS. 

applied much more properly to e P. 45, 55, 60, 8i, 92, 150. 

Jesus Christ. f *Cl tov peyaXov ®€ov' a tov 

cl 06 yap av ovTooq iv ohlycp %po- TeXelov icaiblov' vloq iv warp), Ka) 

vop tq(tqvtov epyov avev Oelaq K'fiepo- iraTYjp iv via - • ine) ydp apvaq 

viae, i%y)vvaev b Kvpioq, oxpei Kara- bvo[/.a^€i Yj ypa(prj Toi/q TraThaq Tovq 

(f)povov[A€voq, spy® itpocrKWOviAevoq, b vyitlovq, tov ®eov tov Aoyov f tov di' 

KaBapo-ioq Ka) ScoTypioq Ka) MetX/- vjj^aq avBpcoirov yevoptvov, Kara icdvTOt, 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 149 



76. dementis Pcedagog. 1. I. c. 6. p. 113. 
In order to introduce the next example, we may 
give a remarkable instance of the manner in which 
the Fathers quoted from memory. Clement gives 
the words which were spoken from heaven at the 
baptism of J esus in the following manner ; " Thou 
" art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten 
" thee." Matthew, (iii. 17.) Mark, (i. 11.) and Luke 
(iii. 22.) all give the words with little variation, 
" Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well 
"pleased." Instead of the last clause, Clement 
supplies the words of Psalm ii. 7. Perhaps we 
ought not to say in this instance that he quoted 
from memory. There is good reason to suppose, 
that in some MSS. the passage was read in this 
way, and the Cambridge MS. actually contains this 
reading. Justin Martyr, who lived before Clement, 
quotes it so twice as do Methodius h and Lactan- 
tius *. Augustin expressly says, that some copies of 
St. Luke read, " Thou art my Son, this day have I 
66 begotten thee" though the words were not in the 
older Greek MSS. He seems to have thought it 
not improbable, that the latter words were actually 
spoken k . Epiphanius gives an extract from the 
Gospel of the Ebionites, in which the words are said 
to have been, " Thou art my beloved Son, in whom 
" I am well pleased : this day have I begotten 
" thee 1 ." 

Clement follows up the quotation with these 



rj/MV aiteiKa^ecrOai fiovXouevov, apvov 
KeKXvjKe tov ®eov, tov vlov tov ®€ov, 
tov yqiriov tov Ylc&Tpoq. 

§ Dial, cum Tryph. c. 88. 
p. 186. et 103. p. 198. 



h Sympos. p. 112. 

k De Cons. Evang. II. 14. 
1 Hser. XXX. vol. I. p. 138, 

L 3 



150 CLEMENS A LE X AN Dill NU 8, A.D. 194. 

words ; " Let us then ask these wise people, is 
" Christ, who is begotten again this day, already 
" perfect, or, which is most absurd, is he deficient ? 
" if the latter, there must be something which he 
" has yet to learn : but it is unreasonable that there 
<e should be a single thing for him yet to learn, since 
t( he is God m ." Clement accordingly concludes, that 
Christ is " perfect, born of the Father who is per- 
"fect n :" and yet at p. 129. he says, that he has 
proved " that the Father alone is perfect ;" which 
two statements can only be reconciled by our be- 
lieving the Father and the Son to be one ; and this 
is asserted by Clement in the very next sentence, 
" for the Son is in Him, and the Father in the 
« Son°." 

77. Clementis Pcedagog. 1. I. c. 6. p. 118. 
It is well known, however, that the Fathers often 
quoted passages of scripture from memory. We 
must not therefore always found a various reading 
upon the mere authority of such quotations, if it is 
not supported by other evidence. I mention this, 
because the following example contains a quotation 
from St. Paul, in which Clement makes a remark- 
able variation from the received text. In quoting 
Gal. iv. 7. he gives it thus ; " Wherefore thou art 
" no more a servant, but a son ; and if a son, then 
66 an heir through God." Our received version says, 
" an heir of God through Christ," Kk^povo^og Seov 
Xpio-Tov, though Griesbach would merely read 
KXv)povo(j.o$ 9 without the other words. I do not wish 

m aXkcc itpoa^aOeiv (Av au- 0 5 A7re8t/|a/xev povov elvai 

rov eiKoq oz5§€ ey, ©eov ovra. Tehetov top Harepcx. tSv oXav' iv 

n -tov Aoyov reXeiov e/c re- avrS yap o vlog, not iv rS vlqi 6 

Ketov (pvvra rov Uarpoi;. Ylaryp. Paed. I. J. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 151 



to contend that the copies which Clement used con- 
tained KXy}povofj.og ha Seov, though two of the best 
MSS. and some later Fathers, support the reading ; 
he perhaps quoted from memory : but the way in 
which he writes the words surely proves, that he 
was in the habit of considering Christ as God, and 
that he thought it indifferent which term he used. 
When he said, an heir through God, he certainly 
did not mean God the Father,, for such a form of 
expression is never to be met with in the New Tes- 
tament or in the Fathers : we are heirs through 
Christ : and Clement, whether he quoted from me- 
mory, or made his choice between different read- 
ings, certainly saw nothing unscriptural or extraor- 
dinary in substituting the term God for Christ. 

78. dementis Pcsdagog. 1. 1, c. 7- p. 131. 

In this chapter he names some of the most cele- 
brated tutors and instructors who are mentioned in 
ancient history, and shews how defective they were 
in many points. He then says of Jesus Christ, " But 
" our Instructor, the holy God Jesus, the Word, who 
" is the Leader of the whole human race, the mer- 
" ciful God himself, is our Instructor p." 

79. Clementis Pcedagog. 1. 1, c. 7- p. 131. 
Every page of this treatise shews, that Clement 

intended Jesus Christ by the Pcedagogus, or In- 
structor : and yet it is equally certain, that he at- 
tributes to this Instructor many sayings and actions, 
which in the Old Testament are ascribed to God. 
Thus, immediately after the last quotation, he says, 
that the passage in Deut. xxxii. 10-12. is spoken of 
him, i.e. the Instructor, or Jesus Christ, though 

p 'O Be r /][AeT€po$ Ylcutayaybq, OpcoTror'/jroi; Ka,8r}y€[Aoov Koyoq, avrbq h 
ayioc, ©eo<j 'lycrovs, 6 Trcctr^q t% av- (piXdv$pamQ<; &eo<; e<7Ti Tlaihuyayoc, 

L 4 



152 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



it is expressly spoken of Jehovah. He continues ; 
" Again, when he speaks in his own person, he con- 
" fesses himself to be an Instructor, / am the Lord 
" thy God, who brought thee out of the land of 
" Egypt. (Exod. xx. 2.) Who then hath power to 
" lead in and out ? Is it not the Instructor ? He 
" was seen by Abraham, and said to him, / am 

6( thy God, walk before me. (Gen. xvii. 1.) But 

" it is Jacob., of whom he appears most evidently to 
" be the Instructor : he says to him. Behold, I am 
66 with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither 
" thou goest, and will bring thee again into this 
" land ;for I will not leave thee, until I have done 
" that which I have spoken to thee of. (Gen. xxviii. 
" 15.) It is with him also that he is said to wrestle: 
" and Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a 
" man with him, the Instructor, until the breaking 
" of the day. (Gen. xxxii. 24.) — —But to shew that 
" it was the Word who wrestled with Jacob, and 
" the Instructor of mankind, it says, he asked him, 
" and said unto him, Tell me thy name : and he 
" said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after 
" my name ? (v. 29.) for he kept the new name for 
" the new people, his children. As yet God the 
*' Lord was without a name % not yet having be- 
" come man. Still further, Jacob called the name 
66 of the place, the face of God, (Penuel;) for, he 
" said, / have seen God face to face, and my life 

i Clement in another place he gives the same attribute to 
mentions it as one of the pecu- Christ, whom he calls God, the 
liar distinctions of God, that Lord. Lactantius quotes a say- 
He is avcovo[A.a<xroq, without a ing of Hermes Trismegistus, 
name : he couples this with His eart yap 6 ay a,va>vv[Aoq. Instit. I. 
other attributes of immensity, 6. p. 23. 
infinity, &c. ; and in this place 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194, 153 



" is preserved. The face of God is the Word, by 
" whom God is made manifest and known. Then 
" also he was called Israel, when he saw God, the 
" Lord. This is God, the Word, the Instructor, 
" who said to him again afterwards, Fear not to go 
" down to Egijpt. (Gen. xlvi. 3.) r " 

There are two things which can hardly be de- 
nied, that Moses in Gen. xxxii. 24 — 30. is speaking 
of God, (Hosea says, that it was the Lord God of 
Hosts, xii. 5.) and that Clement refers the same 
transaction to Jesus Christ. He seems in fact to 
have had the identity of God and Christ so firmly 
impressed upon his mind, that he considered the 
two terms to be convertible, and that whatever was 
predicated of the one, belonged also to the other. 
We may observe further, that Clement quotes the 
words in Exod. xx. 2. as spoken by Christ in his 
own person, which refutes the argument of the Uni- 
tarians, that Christ spoke in the person of God. 
Thus it has been stated to be " the unanimous opin- 
" ion of all antiquity, that Christ appeared and spake 
66 in the person of God the Father s ." But this, as 
we see from Clement, is not true. If we believed 



r UdXiv trav Xeyrj did tov 
Ititov npoo-unov, eavTov o^oXoyei Uai- 
dayuyov' 'Eyw Kvpioq K. T. X. Tlq 
ovv eyjn e^ovalav rov dyeiv elcrco re 
kcci e%w, ov"£i o Uaidayuyoq ; ovToq 
cctyQ'/} tS 'Aftpadp 3 KCCl eilCeV CtVTCC) 

'Eya ei/Ai k. t. X. Tov 'Ia- 

evapyecrTccTct Ylatbayooyoq elvai 
(paiverca. Xeyei yovv avra *ldov, 
eya [A€To, crov k. t. X. Tovra Se 
Kai avfAitaXai'eiv Xeyerai' viteXettpBrj 
he, <p'/}o~}v, 'laKajS k. t. A. ^Oti Se 
o Aoyoq 'fjv 6 dXeiTtTvjq dy.a tcc 'Ia- 
ku(3, Ka) Uaihayayoq T-rjq dvBpaizo- 



T'/jroq, y]paT7}<T€, (pyah, avTov k. t. X. 
er/jpei yap to ovopa to kccivov tS 
vea Xaa, Ta vqitia. eTi he Ka) dvo- 
vopa<TToq vjy o @eoq o Kvpioq //.vjSeW 

yeyev/jfxevoq dvBpamq Ttpoaanov 

he tov @eov 6 Aoyoq, o) (pccTi^eTui o 
®eoq, Kai yvupl^erai. tot€ Ka) 'l<r- 
parjX eTtuvopao-Tai, ore elde tov Qeov 
rov Kvpiov. Oi/Toq eo-Tiv 6 ®eoq, 6 
Aoyoq, 6 Ylaidayayoq, 6 (pqcraq ainS 
izdXiv varepov, [Ay (pofiov KaTaffivai 
elq A'l'yvTTTOV. 

s See Waterland, II. p. 24. 
&c. 



154 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



it to be so, we must necessarily allow the preexist- 
ence of Christ, though we might say that he was 
inferior to the Father : but it may be clearly proved, 
that the same words, which are ascribed in the Old 
Testament to God the Father, are quoted by many 
early writers as spoken by Christ in his own person. 
Thus Tertullian says, that the words in Isaiah i. 18. 
were spoken "in the person of the Lord himself 1 ;" 
and he explains by the context that the Lord means 
Christ. Irenaeus also, as quoted at p. 102. says, that 
" Christ with the Father spoke to Moses ;" and in 
the same chapter he says, that " Christ manifested 
" himself to be the God of the Fathers u ." So far 
therefore from it being said that Christ spoke in 
the person of the Father, we must conclude, unless 
we hold the union of the Father and the Son, that 
the Father spoke in the person of the Son. For 
the writers of the Old Testament say, that God 
spake : the Ante-Nicene Fathers say, that the same 
words were spoken by Christ in his own person. 
80. dementis Pcedagog. 1. 1, c. 8. p. 135. 
The manner in which Clement quotes Psalm ciii. 
14. shews that he conceived the Godhead of the 
Father to comprehend that of the Son. There can 
be no doubt that this Fsalm is addressed to God 
Almighty : every verse of it shews this ; and the 
name Jehovah leaves no doubt : and yet Clement 
refers it to Christ. He says, " Here some rise up 
" and say, that the Lord is not good on account of 

" his rod, and his threats, and his terror forget- 

" ting the greatness of his mercy, that for our sakes 
" he became man : and indeed the prophet prays 



* Adv. Marc. IV. io. p. 420. Deum Patrum IV. 5. 2. p. 232. 
a Et minifestavit se esse 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 155 



" to him in a more familiar manner in these words, 
" Remember us, that we are but dust : i. e. Have 
" a fellow-feeling for us, because by thy own suffer- 
" ings thou hast experienced the weakness of the 
" flesh V 

Whether Clement was right or no, in thus com- 
menting upon the Psalmist's words, is a different 
question : but it seems undeniable that Clement 
considered Jehovah and Christ to be one God: in- 
deed he expressly says so in this same page, " No- 
" thing therefore is hated by God, nor yet by the 
" Word, for both are one, God : for he says, In the 
" beginning the Word was in God, and the W ord 
" was God?" 

81. dementis Pcedagog. 1. I. c. 11. p. 155. 

In this chapter he shews that it was Jesus who 
discharged his office of Instructor by the Law and 
the Prophets : and at the end he says, " The divine 
" Instructor is worthy to be believed, being adorned 
" with three of the noblest things, knowledge, good- 
" will, boldness of speech 2 ; with knowledge, because 
" he is the Wisdom of the Father : all Wisdom is 
66 from the Lord, and is with Him for ever 11 : with 
" boldness of speech, because he is God and Creator : 
" for all things were made by him, and without him 



x 'EvravOa emtpvovTal Tiveq, ovk 
ScyaOov elvai (papevoi tov Kvpiov hia 
tov pa/SSoy, ko.) t\v airetAyv, Kai 

tov <po(3ov iKAa6o(/,evoi Se to f/,e- 

jicttov avTOV Tyjq (piXavdpconiaq, oti 
hi ypaq ccvdpccnroq iyeveTO. koi St/ 
oiKtiortpov avTtf 6 npotp'fjTYjq itpoutv- 
%eTa;, ha tovtuv, MvYjcrOyTi yjpZv, 
oti y/Jvq ivyJv' tovtIgti, ^vumoS'q- 
<rov yfAiv, oti tt,v aarQeveiav Tyjq crap- 
Koq avToitaBccq li:elpacraq. 

y Oi/hev apa piaeiTai vitb tov 



@eov' aW ovde v7ro tov Aoyov' ev 
yap a[A,(pCL\ 6 &eoq' oti elntv, 'Ey 
cipxfi o Aoyoq k. r. A. 

z These three requisites are 
probably borrowed from Ari- 
stotle, who names (ppwrjcriq, apeTvj 
and evvoia as necessary to make 
an orator believed. Rhet. II. i. 

a These words are not to be 
found in the Old Testament : 
there is something like them in 
Prov. ii. 6. 



156 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.194. 



" was not any thing made b : and with good-will, 
" because he alone gave himself as a sacrifice for 
" us c ." We must observe, that in this passage Cle- 



b Clement read this passage 
like many other of the Fathers : 
he put a stop after oile ev, and 
coupled o yeyovev with what fol- 
lows. He quotes it thus in so 
many passages, that it is use- 
less to specify them : but in 
Peed. II. 9. p. 218. he expressly 

quotes 0 yeyovev ev avzS tpy yv, 

as do Irenseus (I. 8, 5. p. 41.) 
and the fragments of Theodo- 
tus. (ad fin. Clem. Alex. p. 968, 
973.) Origen also has 0 yeyovev 
iv tS5 Aoycj "Cfii\ Tjv. (c. Cels. VI. 
5. p. 632. and in Joan. II. 6. 
p. 64.) The quotation in Cy- 
prian, p. 285, might be pointed 
in either way. Epiphanius in 
the fourth century objected to 
the division being made after 
ov§€ %v, and proposed one which 
differed from both the others 
— ovtie ev 0 yeyoyev iv ccvtS). Zccy 
yjv k.t.X. (Ancorat. c. 74, 75. 
p. 80.) and yet in different parts 
of his works he uses both the 
other modes of punctuation. 
Chrysostom (A. D. 398.) con- 
demns the ancient division as 
heretical, and expressly says 
that we are to read iv avrw fyy 
rjv. (Horn. V. in Joan. vol. VIII. 
p. 35.) so that it appears to have 
been between the time of Athana- 
sius and Chrysostom that the 
difference came to be noticed. 
Amelius, the celebrated Pla- 
tonist, who lived in the third 
century, divided the passage as 
the early Fathers. (Eus. Preep. 
Evang. XI. 19.) Eusebius did 
the same. Dem. Ev. p. 150. Ec- 
cles. Theol. II. 14. p. 123. I 



have not met with one excep- 
tion to this mode of dividing 
the sentence in any undoubted 
writing of the three first cen- 
turies : and it may be mention- 
ed, as an additional proof, that 
the work " De recta in Deum 
"fide" is falsely ascribed to 
Origen, that it contains the 
modern division %cop\q ainov eye- 
vero ovbev ev 0 yeyovev. I. p. 85 O. 

The same may be said of the 
Synopsis Scripturce, which is 
ascribed to Athanasius, and con- 
tains the modern division of this 
text; vol. II. p. 129. whereas 
Athanasius appears always to 
have divided it otherwise : and 
also of the Sermo contra omnes 
Hcereses p. 230, though in the 
same treatise the words are 
twice quoted without 0 yeyovev. 
The Homily in Nativitatem 
Christi is generally considered 
spurious, and it contains the 
modern division of the text : 
ib. p. 41 2. Griesbach mentions 
three of the oldest MSS. as con- 
necting 0 yeyovev with what fol- 
lows : he might have added the 
Alexandrian MS. which has a 
point after ev. Wiclif s transla- 
tion certainly agreed with this, 
though in the edition of 18 10 
it is pointed otherwise : it ought 
to be " . . . and withouten him 
" was maad no thing. That 
" thing that was maad in him 
" was lyf. ..." 

c 'A^ioTTiarToq 0 deioq Yla&ayooybq, 
rpicri toI? KctKhltnou; K.eK.00 [A'/j^evo^ 
iivKTT^ixrj, evvolctf itapprjaioc. iiti- 

!7T7JjW.7} fteVy QTl tTGCplct €<7Ti TtOUT piK"1\' 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 157 

ment calls Jesus Christ God and the Creator : he 
was not a ministering spirit, by whom the Father 
created all things ; but he created them by himself 
as God. 

82. dementis P&dagog. L II. c. 3. p. 190. 
This chapter is directed against the use of costly 

and luxurious furniture : and Clement enforces his 
arguments by the example of our blessed Saviour ; 
" He ate out of a homely dish, and made his disci- 
" pies sit down on the ground upon the grass : the 
6( unpresuming God and Lord of the world washed 
" their feet, having girded himself with a towel d ." 

83. Clementis Pcedagog. 1. II. c. 8. p. 214. 

In pursuance of the same subject he condemns 
the use of crowns, or garlands, which were generally 
worn at feasts and sacrifices. He prohibits them as 
being an appendage to luxury or superstition, and 
therefore unworthy of Christians. This leads him 
to mention the crown of thorns which the Jews put 
upon Jesus, meaning it as an insult, but in fact 
crowning him as a King. " The people being in 
" error knew not the Lord : they were not circum- 
" cised in their understanding : their darkness was 
" not enlightened : they saw not God : they denied 
6i the Lord : they lost the true character of Israel e : 
" they persecuted God : they hoped to insult the 
" Word : and him whom they crucified as a male- 
" factor, they crowned as a king. For this reason 
" the Lord, whom they did not believe as man, they 
" shall know as the merciful and just Lord God f ." 



napp'qaiq, he, on Qelt; kou Stj- cafidvu Trepi^cca-d^evot; o a,TV(poq Seoi; 

[Atovpyoc, evvolqc Se, on fjiovot; vTcep kcu Kvptot; rav oXav. 

'/][a£>v lepeiov lavTov iitib&uKev, e i. e. seeing God. 

d Ka* -rots n6§ccq tvvntev avrav f Ovk eyvco tov Kvpiov 6 Kobe, 6 



158 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 

84. dementis Pcedagog. 1. III. c. I. p. 251. 

At page 130 I have given an extract from this 
chapter, which begins thus : " The Word himself is 
" a mystery revealed, God in man, and man God^:" 
and T quote the words again, because they seem to 
give some support to the received reading in 1 Tim. 
iii. 16. In our English version the passage is thus : 
" Without controversy great is the mystery of god- 
" liness : God was manifest in the flesh." In the 
Greek it is o t u.oXoyov[xevcog fxeya lor/ to t% evo-efteiag [xv- 
<JTYjpioV ®eo$ ecfxxvepdoQy] ev aapKi. With respect to the 
meaning of these words in the translation or in the 
original, there can be no doubt. Jesus, who was 
manifested in the flesh, is expressly called God. But 
it is known to all biblical scholars, that there is a 
difference of opinion concerning the true reading of 
this passage. Instead of Seog ecpavepooOy, God was 
manifest, some MSS. read og tyavepudvj, he who was 
manifest, or o e<t>av&pwBvi, that which was manifest. 
If we adopt either of the latter readings, the pas- 
sage is merely this, he who was manifest in the 
flesh was justified in the Spirit, he. which, though 
it makes an intelligible sense, certainly does not con- 
tain any great mystery, which the words of St. Paul 
would lead us to expect. 

The question however is one altogether of testi- 
mony : at least before we have recourse to any other 
arguments, we must inquire what is the reading of 
the oldest MSS. Griesbach is decisive upon this 



uvukavfipivoc,— ovk ei'Sfv tov ®6ov. 

tov Kvpiov ^]pv'f\<xaTo' ccnokaXeKev to 
elvai ^lo-parfh' idla^ev tov @eoV Ka- 
6vj3pt^etv rfkniae tov AoyoV Ka) ov 
io-Tavpaarev olq KaKovpyov, ave&Teipev 
uq {3a<ri\ea' §ia tovto toi elc, ''ov ovk 



iiziaTevcrav avQpumov, tov (pikavQpoo- 
nov ®eov imyvuaovTai Kvpiov, Ka) 
ViKaiov. 

8 Koyoc, yap avToq \fJVQ-T-r\piov eu- 
<paveq' Seoq iv avdpuiru), koi o av- 
Opuito; @eo'?. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 159 



point : he observes, that though all the later MSS. 
read Beoc, yet all the older read or o : and accord- 
ingly he excludes ®eo$ from the text h . I shall not 
say any thing more as to this decision, except to 
state, that one MS. in the Bodleian library, of the 
eleventh century, of which Griesbach had no notice, 
confirms the reading Seo$ { : the MS. which he calls 
74 Wakii 2, and which is in the library at Christ 
Church, reads ®eo$. Griesbach had a very imperfect 
collation of this MS. and states it to be of the thir- 
teenth century. The same reading of Qelg is found 
in another MS. of the same library, which arch- 
bishop Wake considered to be 700 years old; and 
in three others which appear also to be of the 
eleventh century. 

The object of the present work leads me more 
immediately to consider, what is the evidence fur- 
nished by quotations of the passage in the writings 
of the Fathers. Upon this part of the question 
Griesbach observes, that Qeog (( is not supported by 
" any ancient document older than the end of the 
" fourth century," and that " all the Latin Fathers 
" read quod." I must observe here, that in proving 
the latter point, he quotes no Father who wrote 
prior to the council of Nice. As to the Greek Fa- 
thers, he says, that " the oldest of them very seldom 
66 quote the passage :" but his reasoning is surely 
most strange, when he says, that the few who speak 
of " God being manifest in the flesh," may have used 
the word God because they thought that the pas- 
sage applied to Christ; but that we cannot infer 



h See a Critical Dissertation upon this text by Berriraan, Lonci. 
1 741. 1 Canonici MS. 



160 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



from hence, that they found ®eo$ in their copies ! 
Mr. Belsham tells us k , that Beo$ is not cited by any 
early Greek writer, nor by any Latin writer what- 
ever : and Dr. Clarke is quoted by him as saying, 
" that all the ancient Fathers, though the copies of 
" many of them have now 0eo<r, yet from the tenor 
" of their comments must always have read o$ or o." 
Such are the statements of those who wish to ex- 
clude Beo$ from the text ; the accuracy of which we 
will now proceed to examine. 

In conducting the investigation, I shall note down 
in order some of the places where the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers have spoken of " God or Christ being ma- 
" nifest in the flesh." In some instances we per- 
haps cannot decide whether they had the words of 
St. Paul in view or no : wherever the expression is 
coupled with the mention of a mystery, the probabi- 
lity is increased, that they intended to quote the 
passage : and though the word God may not be 
mentioned, yet the authority will be of value, if the 
context shews, that Christ's coming in the flesh im- 
plied that he had also another and a higher nature. 

Barnabas says, that under the character of Jo- 
shua " Jesus was typically manifested in the flesh, 
" not as the Son of man, but the Son of God \" 
See also p. 4. of this work, N°. 3. Ignatius speaks 
of Jesus as " God born in theflesh m :" and of " God 
66 being manifested humanly," which he reckons as 
one of three mysteries, the two others being the 
death of Jesus, and the virginity of his mother n . 

k Calm Inquiry, p. 144. m Ev crapta yevo^evoq ®ecq. ad 

1 y Irj<rovq oz5% 6 vloq avQpaicov oc'a'a' Eph. C. *] . p. 13. 

o vloq tov ®sov rvTta kou iv crapKi n @eov avBpanrtvcix; (pccvepofAevov. 

<f)a.vepo>6e(<;. C. 12. p. 41. Ib. C. 19. p. 16. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. 13. 194. 161 



We have seen that Clement speaks of " the Word as 
" a mystery made manifest, God in man :" and at 
p. 812. he says, that Christ " was manifested God 
es in the flesh °." Hippolytus observes of Christ, that 
" when he came into the world, he was manifested 
66 as God and man :" and " when he came into the 
U world, he was manifested God in the body p." 
The passage itself appears in Rufinus' translation of 
Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 
(I. 4. p. 465.) but he merely quotes manifestatus est 
without any nominative. Dionysius of Alexandria 
says, that Christ was " invisible as God and became 
" visible : for God was manifest in the flesh V 

This last seems to be the only instance in which 
we can say with certainty, that the words of St. 
Paul are expressly quoted : nor shall I venture to 
pronounce whether the allusion is sufficiently strong 
in the other passages to lead us to the conclusion, 
that the Fathers found Beo$- in their copies. I must 
however make two observations: 1. that when Gries- 
bach says, that all the Latin Fathers of every cen- 
tury read quod, the remark is incorrectly, if not 
unfairly, expressed : for no Latin Father of the first 
three centuries quotes the text at all : and Mr. Bel- 
sham is surely not warranted in saying, that though 
some of the ancient Fathers quote the passage with 
Seog, yet it appears from their comments, that they 

° (jjccvy &eo<; iv o-apKia. ix. 5. he says, that St. Paul " has 

Strom. VI. 16. " well explained the mystery of 

P Ovroq 0 irpoeXOuv dq rh KoafAov " truth .•" for the Ethiopic ver- 

®elq kou avOpuizoq i<pavepa6rj. In sion seems to have read ahr r 

Psalm ii. I. p. 268. ®eo<; iv era- Oeiaq instead of evosfielaq at 

uari iifxzvepwd'/j . c. Noetum, c. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 

I 7. II. p. 19. He may also have 9 ®eo? yap i(pccvepa6v) Iv aapA. 

had the controverted text in c. Paul. Samos. p. 2 1 1. 
view, when, after noticing Rom. 

M 



162 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.194. 

always read og or o. I have no hesitation in saying, 
that in no single instance do their comments lead 
to any such conclusion. 2. I must observe, that 
whether the passages quoted above do or do not 
allude to 1 Tim. iii. 16. it is certain that the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, when they spoke of Jesus being 
manifested in the flesh, did not merely mean that 
he was really a man, but that he who was invisible 
as God became visible and manifest as man. 

I may mention, that there is another variation in 
this place, though unconnected with the controvert- 
ed reading Beog efavepwdv]. Our translators wrote — 
which is the church of the living God, the pillar 
and ground of the truth. And without contro- 
versy, &c. Griesbach, after some commentators r , 

divides the passage thus " which is the church 

" of the living God. The pillar and ground of 
" the truth, and without controversy great, is the 
" mystery," &c. I can see no reason for this new 
punctuation ; nor does the sense seem so good. Ori- 
gen quotes the words five times s , and in each case 
he connects the pillar and ground of the truth with 
the church of the living God. This seems decisive 
as to the practice of Origen ; and Athanasius may 
be supposed to have read the passage in the same 
way, when he says 1 , arvkot t% 'hpovo-ahvjfjt. ol aytoi amo- 

r Camero, Crocius, Schmidius, s C. Cels. V. 33. p. 602. in 

H. Ursinus, &c. This punc- Cant. Cant, vol. III. p. 69, 85. 

tuation was adopted in the edi- in Joan. torn. X. 16. p. 184. 

tion of the Greek Testament XXVIII. 4. p. 373. 

printed at Basle in 1540. See 1 In Psalm lxxiv. 4. vol. I. p. 

a dissertation upon this subject 1 1 35. I may mention, that the 

by Imm. Weber, in the The- words @eo<; i(pavepa6vj k. t. X. are 

saurus Theol. Philol. attached expressly cited in the tract De 

to the Critici Sacri, torn. II. p. Incarnatione Verbi Dei, which 

653. has been ascribed to Athana- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 163 

(jtoXoi, Kara to eipYjfjLevov, cttv\o$ kou e^paioofxa Trjg akff 
Belag. Epiphanius also divided it so u . 

85. dementis Pcedagog. 1. III. c. 7. p. 277. 
This chapter is directed against domestic luxury, 
and it is not necessary for me to quote much of it 
in order to explain the following words : " He who 
" hath the Almighty God, the Word, is in want of 
" nothing x ." There is perhaps no passage in the 
writings of the Fathers, where the expression Al- 
mighty God, the attribute of Jehovah alone, is more 
unequivocally referred to Jesus Christ. We may 
also add other passages from Clement himself. At 
p. 148. he speaks of Christ, as " the Almighty and 
" paternal Word > r ." At p. 547. in allusion to 2 Cor. 
xi. 2. for I have espoused you to one husband, 
that I may present you as a chaste virgin to 
Christ; instead of using the name of Christ, he 
explains the one husband by the Almighty Godz. 
At p. 624. he quotes Eph. iv. 11, 12. He gave some, 
apostles, &c. where He evidently means Christ, who 
is named just before : but it is remarkable that Cle- 
ment begins the quotation thus ; " The Almighty 
" God hath given V &c. At p. 646-7. he speaks of 

sius, and which was certainly - v Tov navTOKparopoq kgu na.rpiKQv 

written in the fourth century. Aoyov. Psed. I. 9. 

vol. II. p. 34 : and ill an anony- z — rcov tocc, alpeaaq [Aeriovruv, 

mOUS work (apud Ath. vol. II. kou nopveveiv ccko tov evoq avtpoq ccvcc- 

p. 575.) there appears a plain neiOovTav, tov navTOKpccTopoi; &eov. 

allusion to this text in the words, Strom. III. 12. 

V][jt,%,$ 7) %upi$ eS/Sa|e ®elv dopccrov a 'Eirei 6 TcavroKparcop Seo<; 

iv opcopevYj (pavepcoOyvou crapKi. avToq eSc/cey k. t. X. Strom. IV. 

u Haer. XL. vol. I. p. 298. 21. If we compare Eph. iv. 11. 

He read %q i(pavepco8rj. Heer. with 1 Cor. xii. 28. it appears 

LXXIV. 6. p. 894 : but he that St. Paul himself considered 

quotes the passage as proving it to be indifferent whether he 

the divinity of Christ. attributed the same act to God 

x 'Avei/$e7js yap 0 tov itavroKpa.- or Christ. 
Topa, ©eov Aoyov tyj*>v. 

M 2 



164 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 

the Word as " the Almighty power and omnipotent 
" WillV 

These instances may answer the question proposed 
by G. Clerke in his Antenicenismus, as to where it 
can he found that any ancient doctor ever called 
Christ by the name of God Almighty c . Dr. Clarke 
also was rather inclined to argue, that "Almighty 
6i was by the Ancients taken for the Father d ." We 
have seen that the quotations from Clement contra- 
dict these statements. Tertullian also says, " The 
" names of the Father, God Almighty, most high, 
" &c. these we say belong also to the Son e ." Hip- 
polytus, upon those words of St. John, (Rev. i. 8.) 
which is, and which was, and which is to come, 
God, the Almighty, observes, " he properly calls 
" Christ Almighty f :" and Cyprian applies to Christ 
the words of the same book, (xix. 6.) The Lord 
God omnipotent reigneth s. Lactantius very pro- 
perly observes, when arguing against a plurality of 
Gods, that " none of them can be called omnipotent, 
" which is the true title of God h :" he saw, as in- 
deed is plain to every one, that if the Father and 
the Son are both omnipotent, they must be one in 
mind and will. I may add, that Eusebius argues 
from Zech. ii. 8, 9- (where the LXX read Kvpios nav- 

b e O yap tov Uarpoq xav oXcov of the Modest Plea asserted the 

Aoyoq, ov% cvroq ecrriv 6 npixpopiKot;, same thing : see Waterland, II. 

crcxpla, kou ^pyjcrrorvji; (pavepaTccTr) p. 320. III. p. 1 36-8. 1 68. 
tov Seov, ^vvan'ic, tc ah itayKpar^, e Sed et nomina Patris, Deus 

i<ai rS ovti Qela,' ovhe to7<; (Ar t opo- Omnipotens, Altissimus, Domi- 

Koyovcnv a/ca-ovovjTo?, Ql'kri^a, nav- nus Virtutum, Rex Israelis, &c. 

TOKparopiKov. Strom. V. 1. hsec dicimus et in Filium com- 

c See Bishop Bull's Answer petisse. adv. Prax. c. 17. p. 5 10. 
to G. Clerke, §. 9. vol. VI. p. f Kot'Aaq elnev ivavroKpdropa, Xpi- 

378. a-Tov. c. Noet. c. 6. II. p. 10. 

d Scripture Doctrine of the § Test. II. 19. p. 293. 
Trinity p. 63. and the author h Epit. Instit. c. 2. II. p 3. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 165 



roKparoopy) that the Father and the Son are both 
called Almighty \ 

86. dementis Strom. 1. II. c. 4. p. 436. 

In this part of his treatise, Clement discourses 
very deeply and philosophically upon the nature of 
faith. He shews that faith, i. e. a firm conviction, 
goes beyond knowledge or scientific demonstration ; 
and that we never proceed from knowledge to action, 
unless we believe fully what has been demonstrated. 
Christian faith therefore must lead to Christian obe- 
dience ; and if we obey Christ, it is the strongest 
proof that we believe in him. Clement's words are 
these : " To be obedient to the Word is to believe 
" in him, opposing him in nothing : for how is it 
" possible to set ourselves against God k ?" 

87. Clementis Strom. 1. IV. c. 7- p. 584. 
Clement quotes at full length 1 Pet. iii. 14 — 17 ; 

and it is remarkable, that instead of the words, 
Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, Kvpiov 
tov Qeov dyido-are, he has, Sanctify the Lord Christ, 
Kvpiov tov Xpto-Tov dyidvaTe. As I have observed in a 
former instance, I would not contend that the copies, 
which Clement used, actually read Xpiarov for 0eov, 
though some of the best MSS. support the reading. 
If he only quoted from memory, it is evident that 
he applied the words Lord God to Christ, and con- 
sidered it indifferent which term he used. No 
writer would substitute Christ for God, unless he 
considered the two terms to be identical and con- 
vertible. 

It may be mentioned, that the passage from St. 

1 Dem. Evang. VI. t6. p. 281. 
k To 5e netdecrOai ra Aoya, avia 



ccvTifiuivov-cci' irac, yap olov re avr- 
■Tacr9a. 

M 3 



166 CLEMENS ALEXANDMNUS, A. D. 194. 



Peter is quoted with the same alteration in another 
work which is ascribed to Clement. This is a short 
Commentary upon the first Epistle of St. Peter ; 
which, together with Commentaries upon 1 and 2 
John, and St. Jude, is published at the end of the 
works of Clement, p. 1007. We have only a Latin 
translation of these Commentaries, and we there 
read, Dominum vero Christum sanctificate. 

88. dementis Strom. 1. IV. c. 8. p. 593. 

In order to understand the following quotation, it 
is only necessary to know that Marcion maintained 
that the God, who created the world, was not the 
same with the God who was the Father of Christ. 
He considered the Demiurgus, or Creator, not to be 
a good Principle. Clement, having quoted at full 
length Coloss. iii. 12 — 15. which ends with- — and 
be ye thankful, says, " There is no reason why we 
" should not often quote the same scripture, to put 
44 Marcion to shame, if he can possibly be persuaded 
" to change, having learnt that a believer ought to 
44 be thankful to God, the Creator, who has called 
44 us, and preached the Gospel to us in a [human] 
"body 1 ." 

89. Clementis Strom. 1. IV. c. 26. p, 640. 
We have already seen, that the alterations which 

Clement makes in quoting from the New Testament 
shewed his own conviction of the divinity of Christ. 
It is in vain to argue that this part of his testimony 
must be set aside, because he cites the words of 
scripture erroneously. His testimony is valid as far 
as it goes ; i. e. with respect to his own opinions. 
We may not be authorized, as was observed above, 

1 'Ev^dpitrrov %e7v (/.a6ccv rov iti- Kahecrai/ri vjy.a<;, kou $.vot,yyzhi<Ta.y,kvcp 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 167 



in correcting the received text from these quota- 
tions : but he certainly believed the doctrine, which 
was contained in the quotations, as he himself 
quotes them. If he trusted to his memory, and 
was thereby led to use expressions which differed 
from those of the apostles themselves, he must have 
used the expressions, because the doctrines which 
they conveyed were impressed upon his own mind. 
A person who quotes from memory, though he may 
not give the original words exactly, will hardly 
make them differ from what he considers to be the 
meaning and spirit of his author : and if he quote 
them in support of any argument of his own, he will 
certainly not alter them, so as to contradict his own 
opinions. Though St. Paul therefore may not have 
written the exact words which Clement quotes, 
Clement himself must assuredly have held the doc- 
trine which those words convey. 

These remarks may be illustrated by the follow- 
ing example. St. Paul, in 2 Cor. v. 8 — 10. has these 
words : We are confident, and willing rather to 
be absent from the body, and to be present with 
the Lord: wherefore we labour, that, whether 
present or absent, we may be accepted of him : 
for we must all appear before the judgment seat 
of Christ. In which passage there can be no 
doubt, that to be present with the Lord means to 
be present with Christ ; and we may be accepted of 
him means, we may be accepted of Christ. Clement 
quotes the passage thus : "We are willing rather to 
" be absent from the body, and to be present with 
" God: wherefore we labour, that whether present 
" or absent, we may be accepted of him ; that is, the 
" one God, whose work and creation all things are, 

M 4 



168 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



" the world, and the things above the world m ." The 
Codex Bezse, and another MS., and some versions 
read God instead of Lord. 

90. dementis Strom. 1. V. c. 12. p. 695. 
The next quotation is perhaps more closely con- 
nected with the subject of various readings. In 
quoting John i. 18. Clement makes a very remark- 
able variation. Instead of, No man hath seen 
God at any time: the only-begotten Son, which 
is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared 
Him, Clement reads, " the only-begotten God." 
Here, as in the last instance, we may observe, that 
Clement, before he could have made such a substi- 
tution, must fully have believed Christ to be God. 
But there has certainly been a diversity of readings 
in this text from very early times ; and it is not im- 
probable, that Clement did not quote the only-begot- 
ten God merely from memory, but that he found it 
in his MSS. At p. 956. he evidently alludes to the 
same text, and unites both readings, " And then 
" shalt thou behold the bosom of the Father, whom 
" God the only -begotten Son hath alone declared n ." 
The reading of Beo$, God, is preserved in another 
work, which some have ascribed to Clement, but 
which seems to have been abridged, if not written, 
by Theodotus. He expressly says, p. 968, that the 
words o fjiovoyevYjc,- Beo$, the only-begotten God, are in 
the Gospel, and the context shews that he really 
meant Beo$, God. Irenaeus also preserves both read- 
ings, and even in the same chapter °. In one place 

m evccpecrroi elvai avra, rS nov rov Ylctrpoi;, ov 6 (Aovoyevrji; vtoq 

hA S'/jXoj/ot; Sea, ov rcc navra epyov @ec<j povot; itjyjy/jo-ciro. Quis Dives 

re Ka) kt'ktii;, o re Kocrpoq kou t« Salvetur? C. 37. 

vnepKovfJua. 0 IV. 20. p. 255 and 256. 

n Ka) rore em-nrevcen; rov ko'a- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 169 



he has unigenitus Filius, the only-begotten Son ; in 
the other, unigenitus Deus, the only-begotten God ; 
and in a third place he quotes it with still a further 
difference, unigenitus Filius Dei, the only-begotten 
Son of God p. We could hardly suppose that Ire- 
naeus could have been so inaccurate even in the 
same chapter, and the variations may perhaps have 
arisen from the circumstance of the Latin trans- 
lation being alone preserved. 

The different works of Origen present a great 
variety of readings. In two places ^ he reads Seog, 
God, and in another r , some copies have Seog, some 
vlog. In vol. IV. p. 102 s , Huet printed vlog Seog, 
God the Son, but the Benedictines give vlog tov Seov, 
Son of God. If Rutin us translated him accurately, 
he had also vlog Seov, Son qf God, in another place 1 : 
and we also find him writing [Aovoyevyg Seog vlog tov 
Seov, the only -he gotten God, Son of God 11 . 

Tertullian, Hippolytus, the letter of the council 
of Antioch, and the disputation of Archelaus and 
Manes, read vlog, Son. The Syriac version has Seog, 
God. Of Post-Nicene writers, Eusebius appears to 
have known of both readings ; for in quoting the 
whole passage he writes, 6 (xovoyevvjg vlog vj ^ovoyevrig 
Seog x : and in another place o vlog fxovoyevYjg Seo'g y : 
but he also quotes only vlog z . Epiphanius quotes 6 
[xovoyevvjg Seog, but he appears by his commentary to 
have united both readings. Haer. LXV. 5. vol. I. 
p. 612. At p. 614, he speaks of Seog vlog fAovoyevyg. 

p III. ii. 6. p. 189. u C. Cels. VII. 43. p. 725. 

V In Joan. torn. II. 29. p. 89. x De Eccles. Theol. I. 9. 

et XXXII. 13. p. 4 38 s p. 67. 

r C. Cels. II. 71. p. 440. y P. 175. 

* In Joan. torn. VI. 2. 7 P. 86. 

1 In Cant. Cant. IV. p. 9 1 . 



170 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 



At p. 818, he expressly quotes o fxovoyevyg GeoV and 
at vol. II. p. 7, he seems to have read Seog, though 
it is not in the present copies : his words are, 'Iyjo-ovv 
kitov riva ; aXrfivov Geov. el §e Seov Hpiarov 'lYjaovv, &g 
Xeyei irep) aviov o 'Icoavvyg, O [xovoyevYjg, o oov k. t. A. and 
in the next page he expressly says that St. John 
called Christ povoyevY] Seov. 

91. dementis Strom. 1. VI. c. 16. p. 812. 
In this section Clement makes some rather absurd 
remarks upon certain numbers, such as 6, 7, 8, &c. 
and the example, which I am about to give, is ob- 
scure from other trifling allusions which it contains. 
To make it intelligible by a literal translation is 
almost impossible. I shall therefore only attempt to 
give the meaning of it, leaving out what is unneces- 
sary for our present subject, or paraphrasing it so as 
to give the same sense in different words. He has 
been speaking of the number 8, and adds, 44 There 
H are three persons beside our Lord, when he goes 
44 up into the mount to be transfigured : there are 
44 then five beside him, and he becomes surrounded 
" with a spiritual light, having displayed his ma- 
44 jesty to view, as far as it was possible to be beheld 
" by those who were chosen to see it : he is then 
44 proclaimed to be the Son of God by the voice, 
" which makes the seventh person ; that his disciples 
44 might have rest, being now convinced concerning 
44 him ; and that he, by the birth which had been 
44 proclaimed, becoming a new person, i. e. an eighth, 
44 might appear as God in the flesh, having revealed 
44 his majesty, reckoned as a man, but concealing 
44 who he really was a ." 

a Tavrri roi o Kvpioq i^TCtproc, (pan %€piAa,[A7i:erat itvev^ocTiKS, t/jv 
ava^ai; dc, to opo<; e/cTo? ylverai, Kai SiW/x^v rvji> aii ccvrov Tvupayv^va- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.194. 171 



The passage, as I observed before, is sufficiently 
puerile in its allusions : but it shews the nature of 
Clement's belief, as much as the gravest and most 
judicious dissertation. It not only expressly says, 
that Christ was God manifest in the flesh, but by 
reckoning him twice over, both as number 6 and 
number 8, it marks his divine and human nature : 
and by counting the voice as number 7, it also shews 
the Father and the Son to be two persons. 

92. dementis Strom. 1. VII. c. 2. p. 831. 

Having remarked that obedience should always 
follow faith, he says, that a religious man is the best 
of all earthly things, as angels are the best of all 
things in heaven : u But the most perfect, and most 
" holy, the highest and most commanding, the most 
" royal and beneficent nature is that of the Son, 
" which is most closely connected with Him who is 
" alone Almighty. This is the greatest supremacy, 
" which arranges all things according to the Will of 
" the Father, and directs every thing in the best 
" manner, performing every thing with an unwearied 
" and inexhaustible power : it is thus that it acts, 
" contemplating its own hidden counsels ; for the 
" Son of God never departs from his own watch- 
" tower ; not divided, not separated, not changing 
" from place to place, but every where at all times, 
" and circumscribed nowhere, wholly intelligence, 
" wholly paternal light, wholly eye, seeing all things, 
" hearing all things, knowing all things — — to him 
" the whole host of angels and gods is subject, to 

crag, elq oaov olov re r\v l$e7v roiq eh'qXaa-ev 7j s^ccq iiticr^fjioq, oy^oaq 

opav iKXeyi7ai' cV efiftofA'/jq avaK'tjpvcr- vitdp^av, (pavy Seoq iv aapKiu, rrjv 

croy.€Voq rTjq (pccvvjq vloq thou ®eov' hvvctij.iv iv^eiKVvfAevoq' apiQy.ovit.zvoc, 

'iva hv> at [A6v ctvuiravo-avTcci -neiaBiv- jxev coq avBpaTtoq, Kpvinoy,evoq 8e e$ 

T€q %ep\ avTQVs o $icc ytvicreooq, tpt r\v. 



172 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 

" the paternal Word, who has undertaken the holy 
" dispensation on account of Him, who subjected 
« them to him V 

This passage is rather mystical, but it is suffi- 
ciently intelligible to shew the exalted notion which 
the writer conceived of the divinity of the Son. It 
effectually excludes the idea of Christ being a cor- 
poreal or even an angelic being : it identifies him 
with the essence of the Father, and ascribes to him 
those attributes which can only belong to God. If 
any person should doubt what was Clement's mean- 
ing, when he spoke of Christ as the Son of God, I 
would refer him to the following passage, which 
shews that he understood him to be Son, not by 
adoption, but by nature, begotten of the substance 
of the Father. " We are not as the Lord ; for we 
" wish to be so, but cannot : for no disciple is above 
" his master ; but it is enough, if we can become as 
" the master ; not in substance, (or essence,) for that 
" which is by adoption cannot possibly be equal in 
" its existence to that which is by nature ; but it is 
" possible for us to become eternal, and to under- 
" stand the contemplation of things, and to be called 
" sons, and to see the Father only from his essential 
" attributes c ." 



b TeXeiurdrvj hrj kou dyiardry, 
kou Kvpiardrvj Kai r\ye\^oviK(nrdrt\^ 
kou fiat? iXiKwr dry, Kcci evepyeriKa- 
toItyi vj vlov (pv<riq, vj ra [/.ova itavro- 
Kpdropi 7r^oo-e%ecrTaT»j. avrvj y /xe- 
yia-cv) VTtepoy}}, 7) roc ndvra hiardcr- 
<rerai Kara to BeXf\\A,a rov Ylarpoq, 
kou to ndv upicrra oIockI^i, aKaif.dra 
kou arpvrcp hvvdpei ntdvra epyaCp- 
//.eV/j, hi w ivepyeT rdq dftOKpvcpovq 
Ivvolaq eitifiXenvovcra. ov yap i^iara- 
ral 7tot€ ryjg avrov nepicoizyjq o vloq 



rov @eoE' ov f/.epi^o/A,evoq, ovk dirore- 
l^vo^evoq, ov {/.erafiaivuv e/c to'ttoii elq 
toVov, irdvrrj he cov itdvrore, Kai 
lUf^aiK^ nepieyfiiAevoq, oXoq vovq, oXoq 
fpaq narpaov, oXoq o<p6aX[M>q, irdvra 
opai/, irdvra aKovav, eihcoq itdvra 

rovru viacra vnvoreraKrai crrpa- 

rid dyyeXav re koi Beav, rS Aoya 
rS> TtarpiKO) rr\v ayiav olKOVo^lav dva- 
heheyfAevcp hid rov virord^avra. 

c Ovk eV|W,ev aq 6 Kvpioq, ineihy) 
(3ovX6[Ae9a jtAej/, ov hvvdy.e6a §£' ov- 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 173 



93. dementis Strom. 1. VII. c. 2. p. 832. 
The arguments, by which Clement proves the 
providence of God, shew also that he believed Jesus 
Christ to be God. " The Lord either does not care 
" for all men : and if not, it must be either from 
" want of power, (which we cannot believe, for it 
6f would be a sign of weakness,) or from want of 
" will, though he has the power ; but this would not 
" be the case with a good being : he cannot there- 
" fore be negligent from laziness, who for our sakes 
" took upon him flesh, which exposed him to suffer- 
" ing : or else he does care for all men ; which pro- 
" perly belongs to him, who was made Lord of all 
" things ; for he is the Saviour of all men, not of a 

" part Neither does envy affect the Lord, who 

" without beginning has been free from passion 

" neither can we say, that the Lord had no wish to 
" save man owing to ignorance, because he did not 
" know how to provide for each : for ignorance does 
" not affect God, who shared his Father's counsels 
" before the foundation of the world ; for this was 
" the Wisdom in which the Almighty God rejoiced: 
" for the Son is the Power of God, being the su- 
" preme Word of the Father, and His Wisdom, be- 
" fore all existing things d ." 



Se<? yap ixaByjTTjq imp tov hifido-KaXov' 
apKerov §e, lav yevapeOa ocq o $i$d- 
(TKa'Aoq, ov tear ovalav, afivvarov yap 
Ictov elvcci irpoq ryv vnap^tv to Becrei 
tw cpvcrei' to Se aiViovq ytyovevai, 
Kai TTjv tu>v ovtccv Beapiav eyvccKe- 
vai, Kai vlovq irpoo-yyoptia-Bai, Ka) tov 
UaTepa a%b t®v oiKslav KaBopav //.o- 
vov. Strorn.il. 17. p. 469. 

d "Htoi yap ov <ppovTi^€i navToov 
dvBpuitav 0 Kvpioq, Ka) tovto, tj tS 
(A.v) ZvvaaBai ndBoi av' onep ov Be^i- 



toV daBevtiaq yap ar^K^iov' \ too 
fiovXeaBai, dvvdj/.evoq' ovk dyaBov Se 
To ndBoq' ovkovv into Tpvcpyjq pdBv\f.oc„ 
0 Si' Ti^aq TTjv TvaOyjTyv dva\a(3wv 
adpKa' % KvfieTai tuv trvpnavTccv, 
OTiep Kai KaQy\Kei tS Kvpta ndvTcov 
yevopeva' crccTyjp yap itTTiv ovy) tuv 

(xev, tcov §' oil, aW ovhe aitTt- 

Tai tov Kvptov aTtaBovc, dvdpyjuc, ye- 

votAevov (pdovoq Kai (avjv ovB^ vttq 

dyvoiaq eo"T<v elireTv fxy ftovXtvBai 
trw^eiv Tvji/ dvBpwnoTrjTa tov Kvpiov, 



174 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.194. 



These are the usual arguments by which the pro- 
vidence of God is shewn from His attributes of om- 
niscience and omnipotence : but they are applied 
here to the Son. The God, who cannot be limited 
in power or will, took upon him our flesh : God is 
assumed to have a care for His creation, but it is the 
God who shared His Father's counsels before the 
foundation of the world. We may observe also, that 
Clement calls the Son the Wisdom of God. This is 
a common expression with the Fathers. Clement 
says in another place, " He is called Wisdom by all 
" the prophets e ." Irenaeus speaks of " God making 
" all things by Himself, i. e. by the Word and by 
" His Wisdom f ." Tertullian also having used the 
word Wisdom explains it to mean, " the Son who 
" is Christ, the Wisdom and Power of God It 
seems natural to suppose, that all those writers bor- 
rowed this expression from St. Paul, who in 1 Cor. 
i. 24. calls Christ the Power of God and the Wis- 
dom of God: Athanasius appeals to this text as prov- 
ing Christ to be the Wisdom of God. (De Decret. 
Syn. Nic. 15. vol. I. p. 220 :) and the apostle seems 
to have attached the same mysterious idea to the 
word, when he says, In him are hid all the trea- 
sures of Wisdom and knowledge. (Col. ii. 3.) It may 
be remarked also, that our Saviour says in Matt. 

§<a to [Avj elhevai oirojq €Ko,<ttov im- attavTuv t£i/ Ttpocp'/jTuv. Strom. VI. 

(xeX'/jTeov, ayvola yap ov% anTerau J. p. 769 , 

tov ®eov, tov vpo Ka.Ta[3oAy)<; ko(j[aov i — —qui fecit ea per semet- 

cv[a^ovXov yevopevov tov Uarpoc. ipsum, hoc est, per Verbum et 

avTri yap \v crotyia $ %po<rexa,ipev 0 per Sapientiam suam. II. 30. 9. 

<xa,VTOKpccTojp Seoq' 'bvi/a^iq yap tov p. 1 63. 

®eov 6 vllq, are irpo navTuv tuv § Prceter Sophiam autem, prae- 

yevopevoov ap%iKaTa,Toq Aoyoq tov ter Fiiium dicit, qui est Christus, 

UaTpoq Ka\ crocpia avTov. Sophia et Virtus Dei. adv. Prax. 

e 2o<^/a Se ovToq eip'^rat npoq C. 1 9. p. 5 11 - 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 194. 175 



xxiii. 34. Behold, I send unto you 'prophets, &c. 
but St. Luke reports him to have said, Therefore 
also said the Wisdom of God, I will send them pro- 
phets, &c. xi. 49. The passage, in which St. Paul 
appears most plainly to personify Wisdom, and to 
identify it with Christ, is perhaps 1 Cor. ii. 6 — 8. 

I have already had occasion to remark, p. 47. that 
the Fathers understood the Son of God to be in- 
tended, when it is said in the book of Proverbs, 
(iii. 19.) that the Lo?rl by Wisdom hath founded 
the earth : that lie possessed me in the begin- 
ning of His way, before His works of old. (viii. 
22.) Though the correctness of this interpretation 
might be doubted, it is quite clear, that when the 
Fathers called Christ the Wisdom of God, they 
meant to express his union and con substantiality 
with the Father. In the same manner that the 
Wisdom of a man is not the man himself, and yet is 
not separated from him, so they meant that the Son 
is not the Father, and yet is inseparable from the 
Father. It was the same idea which caused the 
application of the term Logos, Reason, or Word, to 
the Son. All attempts to explain the coexistence 
of the Father and the Son in human language must 
necessarily fail : no illustration of such incompre- 
hensible union can be perfect in all its parts ; but 
when the Fathers say that Christ is the Wisdom of 
God, and that the Wisdom of God is God Himself ; 
we are at no loss to understand their religious be- 
lief, though we may find ourselves equally unable to 
express it in suitable terms. The object of these 
pages is to prove what was the belief of the early 
Fathers : and no one, who reads the present ex- 
ample, can doubt, but that they held the Father and 



176 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



the Son to be as inseparably connected as the soul 
of man is with the wisdom or intelligence which 
emanates from it. The reader will observe, that in 
the above quotation Christ is said to be without be- 
ginning; and in another place Clement speaks of 
the Son as " the beginning and first-fruits of existing 
" things, without time and without beginning h ." 
94. dementis Strom. 1. VII. c. 10. p. 866. 
Clement having described the progress of a Chris- 
tian from faith to knowledge, and from knowledge 
to charity, by which he means the practical exercise 
of all Christian graces, quotes a passage from the 
24th Psalm to support his observation. The quo- 
tation differs from the Hebrew, but agrees with the 
Septuagint version. Who shall ascend unto the 
hill of the Lord, or who shall stand in his holy 
place ? He that hath clean hands and a pure 
heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto va- 
nity, nor sworn to deceive his neighbour. He 
shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy 
from God his Saviour. This is the generation 
of them that seek the Lord, that seek the face of 
the God of Jacob, ver. 3 — 6. Upon which words 
Clement makes the following observations : " The 
" prophet has given a brief description of the man 
" of knowledge. David has shewn to us cursorily, 
" as it appears, that the Saviour is God, calling him 
" the face of the God of Jacob, who has given us 
" glad tidings and instructions concerning the Spi- 
" rit : wherefore also the apostle 1 has called the Son 

h TV axpovov Kol avapxov ap%vjv observe, that Clement expressly 

re i<a) Snrapxyv rav ovroov tov vlov. quotes this Epistle as the work 

Strom. VII. i. p. 829. of St. Paul, Strom. VI. 8. p. 771. 

1 He alludes to the Epistle to Eusebius tells us, (H. E. VI. 

the Hebrews, i. 3. and we may 14.) that Clement conceived it 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 177 



" the express image of his Father's glory, who 
" hath taught us the truth concerning God; and ex- 
" pressly declared that God the Father is one and 
" alone, the Almighty, whom no man knoweth, save 
" the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
" Him. (Matt. xi. 27.) He signifies that God is one 
" by the expression, them that seek the face of the 
" God of Jacob, whom our Saviour and God de- 
" scribes as being alone good, God the Father k ." 

This passage becomes more intelligible, when we 
remember, that Clement calls Christ the face of the 
Father. It was his opinion, as it was of all the 
early Fathers, that whenever God was said in the 
Old Testament to he seen, as he was by Jacob (Gen. 
xxxii. 30.) and by Moses, (Exod. xxxiii. \\^)face to 
face, it was not God the Father, but God the Son, 
who appeared : and thus they called the Son the 
face of the Father, or that form under which he 
chose to reveal himself to man ] . Thus in the pas- 
sage already quoted, at p. 153. he says, " The face 
" of God is the Word, by whom God is made mani- 
" fest and known :" and in another place, " The Son 



to have been written by St. Paul 
in Hebrew, and translated by 
St. Luke. According to Photius, 
(Cod. i2i.) Irenseus did not 
think that it was written by St. 
Paul; nor did Hippolytus : but 
we find no such observation in 
the works of those Fathers now 
extant. Tertullian says that it 
was written by Barnabas, (de 
Pudicitia, c. 20. p. 572.) Origen 
quotes it as the work of St= Paul, 
and wrote a treatise to prove that 
it was so : see Epist. ad Afric. 
vol. I. p, 20. The Arians did 



not ascribe it to St. Paul. Epi- 
phan. Hser. LXIX. 37. vol. I. 
p. 760. 

k 2w/T0|C/,6>£, 0l[ACtl, TOJ/ yVCCCTTlKOV 

ifA'fjvvaev 6 Hpo<p'/}TVj<;' Kara, napa- 
hpo^rjv, &q eoiKev, vjfMV Seov elvai rov 
<ruTYipa a7re§et£ey o A«/3i§, irpoauntov 
avrbv eiTC&v rov ®eov 'laKcofi, rov 
evayyehiaa^evov Kai ^ihd^avra irep) 
rov itvev^aroi; eW elvai rov 

&€QV Side, TlSv ^'/JTClWTWV TO TtpOVCCTlOV 

rov ®eov 'laKafi fAe^vvrai' ov po- 
vov ovra ®€qv rraripa dyaOov yapa- 
Krypt^i 0 (Tccrvjp ^uv Kat ®eo<;. 

1 See 2 Cor. iv. 6. 



N 



178 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 194. 



" is called the face of the Father, the Word who 
" took our flesh, and revealed that which belongs 
" peculiarly to the Father m ." Origen also has used 
the same expression : upon those words, Ps. lxxx. 7. 
Cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved, 
he says, " he here calls Christ the face : for he is 
" the image of the invisible God n :" and upon Ps. 
cxix. 58. which he translates, " / entreated thy face 
6C with my ivhole heart" he says, " The face of God 
" is the express image of His substance, as I have 
" often observed 0 ." 

Clement therefore conceived David to have in- 
tended Christ, when he speaks of the face of the 
God of Jacob ; and, according to this interpreta- 
tion, David makes our Saviour to be God, as Cle- 
ment observes : and yet he also says, that there is 
only one God, in proof of which he quotes the de- 
claration of our Saviour who is himself God. Un- 
less we believe Clement to have considered the Son 
to be united in the Godhead with the Father, the 
whole of this passage is unintelligible : but if we 
admit the idea of two persons in one Godhead, the 
meaning of it is perfectly plain, though we may per- 
haps not think the reasoning altogether judicious. 
95. dementis Qiiis Dives Salvetur f c. 6. p. 939- 

Beside the works from which I have already 
made many quotations, Clement also wrote a short 
treatise, entitled, What rich Man can be saved? 

m Hpo<reo%ov elp^rai tov Ylarpoq o n Ylpi<ra<sov ivTav8a. tov Xpto-Tov 

Tlbq, crapKOcfiopoq yevopevoq o Koyoq covo^aaev, gIkccv yccp k. t. X. II. 

o tov -zaTpojov [ArjvvTvtf l^ia^a,Toq. p. 77 2, 

Strom. V. 6. p. 665. Athana- 0 Tipo<ruizov ®eov 0 yjxpa.KT\p ty}<; 

sius has the same expression, vnoeTuGeooq avTov, uq itoXXaKiq et- 

•npoa-uixov tov naTpoc, o vloq. In pyjTai. p. 803. 
Psalm xxi. 6. p. 1035-6. 



CLEMENS ALEXANDRXNUS, A.D. 194. 379 



and not far from the beginning of it he gives a long 
extract from St. Mark's Gospel, x. 1 7, &c. Among 
other remarks which he makes upon the question 
put to our Saviour, he says, that Jesus " knew be- 
" forehand, as God, what questions were about to 
" be put to him, and what answers were about to 
" be made. For who could know it better than the 
" Prophet of prophets, and the Lord of every pro- 
w phetic spirit p ?" Thus it was Jesus who inspired 
the prophets, and he knew the thoughts of men be- 
forehand : either of which powers must prove, in 
the opinion at least of Clement, that he considered 
Christ to be God, even if he had not expressly called 
him so. 

96. Clementls Fragmentum. p. 1014. 
We may finish the quotations from Clement of 
Alexandria with two fragments preserved from his 
lost works. In the first is a commentary upon the 
Gospel of St. Matthew. 44 The pearl is the resplen- 
" dent and most pure Jesus, whom the Virgin bore 
" from the heavenly illumination : for as a pearl, 
44 when in flesh and in the shell and in the water, 
44 seems to be a liquid and transparent body full of 
" light and spirit, so also God the Word having be- 
44 come flesh, is an intellectual light, shining through 
" light and a pure body %" 

P ITpoei'Se Ze cbq ®eoq kou a ueXXet vopevoq au^a eoiKev etvai vypov kou 

diepaTfj6-rj<7€cr6ai, kou a peXXei nq SietSe? (pcoroq kou ttvev^aroq yi^ov, 

avrS anoKplveaQou. T{q yap kou ovra kou 6 aapKcc6e)q &€oq Aoyoq 

[AciXXov r] o irpocp'fjTYiq npocprjTwv, kou <pcoq ecrr* voepov, ha (paToq kou vypov 

Kvpioq itavToq npocpYjTiKov nveupa- eKXdpxpaq o~u[AaToq. The word 

toq ; acnpa-nYj in this passage may be 

i 'Ea-rt [AapyapiTYjq kou o diavyrjq illustrated by an absurd account 

koi KaSapararoq 'l^aovq, ov i£ a- of the manner in which pearls 

arpanriq rrjq Qelaq vj TtapQevoq lykvvv\- are formed by lightning, in the 

<rev' ucrirep yap I papyaphriq iv 19th Question of the Pseudo- 

<rapKi kou offTpe/y Ka\ h vypo7q ye- Athanasius. vol. II. p. 341-2. 

N 2 



180 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



97. dementis Fragmentum, (in editione Hippo- 
lyti 9 vol. II. p. 73.) 
This is said to be taken from a work of Clement 
written against Judaizing Christians. " Solomon, 
" the son of David, in the Book of Kings, under- 
" standing, that the building of the true temple was 
" not only heavenly and spiritual, but also related 
" to the flesh [the fleshly tabernacle] which the Son 
" and Lord of David was about to build, and to his 
" coming, where he intended to establish himself 
" like a kind of animated statue r , and to the church 
" which was to be raised according to the agree- 
" ment of faith, speaks thus, Will God indeed dwell 
66 with man on the earth ? 1 Kings viii. 27. But 
" he dwells on the earth, being clothed with flesh, 
" and his dwelling is with men in the agreement 

u and harmony among the righteous But in his 

" body, which the Lord consecrated to himself as a 
" holy place confined by limits, he says, Destroy 
" this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 
« John ii. 19 s ." * 

Tertullian. A. D. 200. 
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertuliianus was born 



Irenaeus speaks of to tov Xpic-rov 
era pet KaBapov /cat hotvyeq. Fragm. 
p. 342. 

r The heathen temples had 
lifeless statues in them : Christ 
was in the Jewish temple as a 
living statue : he was the very 
God himself. 

s 1,o\o(aZv o tov Aa/SiS <uaiq 

TTjv tov dX^Btvov vea Ka.Ta<TKevv)v 
tjvvelq ov u.ovov eitovpdviov elvai Kai 
nveviAaTiKrjv, ijby) be Kai eiq Tyv 
crupxa hiacpepeiv rjv e^eXkev oiKobo- 



pe7v 0 tov Aa/3iS vloq re koi Kvpioq, 
elq re rrjv avrov icapova-'iav, evBa 
KaBibpveaBai, KaBdnep ti ayaX[/.a 

e^v^ov, bteyvuKei Xeyei, el d- 

'AYjBojq dpa KaToiKYj<rei ©eoq [/.era 
dvBpunav eiii Tyq yvjq ; KaroiKeT Be 
enl Tvjq yrjq crdpKa irepi^aXXo^evoq, 
Ka) [xerd dvBpuncav avrS KaToiK'f\aiq 
yiverai iv ttj Kara Tovq tiKalovq 

evvBeaei Te Ka) dpixovla. 'Err! 

he tov <Ta[/,aToq o Kara 7reptypa<prjV 
Toitov evBeov iavra KaBiepaaev e%\ yr\q 
oKvpioq, Aria-are, elite, tov vaov k.t.X. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 181 



at Carthage about the middle of the second century. 
He appears at first to have been a heathen, and is 
supposed to have been converted about the year 185, 
and to have been ordained in 192. There is no 
doubt, that after a time he fell into the heresy of 
Montanus, who fancied himself the Paraclete, and 
laid down rules of great rigour and austerity. The 
works which Tertullian wrote were very volumi- 
nous, many of which have come down to us. Some 
of them appear to have been written after he be- 
came a Montanist : but there is no reason to think, 
that his peculiar opinions at all affected his belief 
concerning the divinity of Christ, or any vital tenets 
of Christianity. It is expressly said by Epiphanius % 
that Montanus himself agreed with the catholic 
church in his opinions concerning the Trinity. The 
same is also asserted by Theodoret u concerning the 
Montanists generally, though he adds that some of 
them adopted Sabellianism. 

He is supposed to have become a Montanist about 
the year 200, and to have died either in 230, as 
Cave thinks, or, according to Tillemont, in 245. 

In the course of the following quotations Tertul- 
lian will be found often to call Jesus Christ God: 
and since doubts have been raised as to the sense 
in which this title was referred to Christ by the Fa- 
thers, the following passages may explain the mean- 
ing which Tertullian attached to the word. 

44 What we worship is one God, who formed this 
" universe out of nothing x . 

1 Hser. XLVIII. vol. I. p. x Quod colimus Deus unus 

402. est, qui totam molem istam— 

u Hser. Fab. III. 2. vol. IV. de nihilo expressit. Apol. c. 17. 

p. 227. p. j 6. 

N 3 



182 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200 



" God is a name of the very substance, i. e. of 
" divinity : Lord does not imply substance, but 
" shews, that the substance of power always existed 
" together with his own name, which is God, and 
" afterwards Lord y," 

" No person must be called God, because none 

" can be believed to be so, except the Supreme 

" Say that he is not God at all, if you call him an 
" inferior God z ." 

" I am commanded not to call any one else God ; 
" not to make any other God even in speech, not 
" by my tongue any more than by my hand : not to 
" worship any other, or pay any kind of homage, 
" except to that only God, who gives these com- 
(t mands a ." 

98. Tertull Apol c. 21. p. 19. 

Tertullian published his Apology, or Defence of 
Christianity, in the reign of Septimius Severus, in 
what is generally called the fifth persecution, about 
the year 198. Having alluded to the generally pre- 
vailing opinions, that the Christians were merely a 
sect of the Jews, and that they paid religious wor- 
ship to a human being, he says, " It is necessary 
" therefore, that I should say a few words concern- 
" ing Christ, as being God b ." He then mentions, 

y Deus substantias ipsius no- Marc. I. 6. p. 368. 
men, id est, divinitatis : Domi- a Prtescribitur mihi ne quern 

nus vero non substantias, sed alium Deum dicam ; ne vel di- 

potestatis substantiam semper cendo, non minus lingua quam 

fuisse cum suo nomine, quod manu Deum fingam ; ne quern 

est Deus, postea Dominus. adv. alium adorem, aut quoquo mo- 

Hermog. c. 3. p. 234, do venerer, praeter unicum il- 

z Deus non erit dicendus, lum qui ita mandat. Scorp. 

quia nee credendus, nisi sum- c. 4. p. 490. 
mum magnum— — «NegaDeum, b Necesse est igitur pauca de 

quern dicis deteriorem. adv. Christo, ut Deo. Apol. c. 21. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



183 



that even the heathen writers had conceived an idea 
of the Logos as a creative Spirit ; after which he 
explains the Christian notion of the Logos, and says, 
" We believe it to have been produced from God, 
" and to be begotten by production, and therefore 
" called the Son of God, and God from the unity of 
" substance c :" and when he has finished, he says, 
" Inquire therefore, whether this divinity of Christ 
" is true d ." 

99- TertuTt. de Patientia, c. 3. p. 140. 
He begins this treatise by inculcating the duty of 
patience from the example of God himself, ivho sends 
rain upon the just and upon the unjust, who for- 
bears to punish idolatrous nations, and who tolerates 
such a variety of wickedness. In this he evidently 
alludes to the one true God, the Lord of heaven 
and earth, whom we call God the Father : and yet 
he goes on to say, " These are the examples of di- 
" vine patience, of which we may form some notion 
66 as being at a distance and above us : but what 
" shall we say of that which has appeared openly 
" upon earth among men, and been as it were han- 
" died by them ? God permits himself to be born in 
" the womb of his mother, and waits, and when he 
" is born endures to grow to manhood, and when 
" grown up takes no pleasure in being recognized, 
" &c. &c. e " In this passage Tertullian not only 

c Hunc ex Deo prolatum di- quo, fors ut de supernis aestime- 

dicimus, et prolatione genera- tur. Quid ilia autem quae inter 

turn, et idcirco Filium Dei, et homines palam in terris quo- 

Deum dictum ex imitate sub- dammodo manu apprehensa est? 

stantiae. Ib. Nasci se Deus in utero patitur 

d Quaerite ergo, si vera est matris, et expeetat, et natus 

ista divinitas Christi. Ib. p. 21. adolescere sustinet, et adultus 

e Et haec quidem divinae pa- non gestit agnosci, 
tientisa species, quasi de longin- 

N 4} 



184 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



calls Christ God, but he clearly shews, that he con- 
sidered him to be one with the Father. The God 
who forbears to punish the wicked, is the same who 
was born of the Virgin Mary. 

So also at c. 4. he gives to Christ by implication 
the title of living God. Having enumerated se- 
veral instances of Christ's great patience, which he 
exhibited while on earth, he draws the conclusion, 
that we, who are his servants, ought to imitate our 
Master in this respect. " If we see good and ho- 
" nest servants form their conduct according to the 
" temper of their masters, how much more ought 
" we to be found to mould ourselves after the pat- 
" tern of the Lord ! we, who are servants of the 
" living God, who will reward his servants, not with 
" the chain or the cap f , but with an eternity of 
" punishment or of salvation The title living 
God must be applied to Christ in this passage, or 
the reasoning fails. We are servants of the living 
God, and are therefore to imitate him : and Tertul- 
lian here exhorts us to imitate him in patience : but 
all the examples of patience which he gives are 
taken from the life of Christ : it follows therefore, 
that Christ, whose servants we are, and whom we 
are to imitate, is the living God. 

The sentence with which he finishes this part of 
the argument is equally strong ; " Who then can 
" treat at sufficient length of the advantage of that 

f In allusion to the custom mus quanto magis nos se- 

of putting fetters upon bad ser- cundum Dominum moratos in- 

vants, and rewarding good ones venire oportet? Servos scilicet 

with the cap of liberty, i. e. Dei vivi, cujus judicium in suos, 

emancipating them. non in compede aut pileo ver- 

g Igitur si probos quosque titur, sed in seternitate aut pce- 

servos et bonse mentis pro in- nse aut salutis. 
genio dominico conversari vide- 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 185 



" patience, which God, the Lord of all good men, 
" who tries and accepts them, carried about in his 
" own person h ?" The Lord God is here evidently 
Jesus Christ. 

100. Tertull. de Virg. Velandis, init. p. 172. 

Tertullian wrote this treatise to enforce the pro- 
priety of young women having their heads covered, 
and to condemn them for having broken the rule. 
He says, that Truth, by which he seems to mean 
the eternal fitness of things, required this rule to be 
observed ; and that this Truth cannot be altered by 
lapse of time, nor by any prescription of person or 
country or custom. He adds, 66 Christ our Lord has 
" called himself Truth, (John xiv. 6.) not custom. 
" If Christ has been always and is before all things, 
" Truth is equally eternal and ancient i ." This pas- 
sage compels us to believe in the eternal existence 
of Jesus Christ, at least according to Tertullian's 
creed. For let us suppose him to have had no ex- 
istence previous to his birth from the Virgin : still 
there never was a time when Truth did not exist, 
according to Tertullian's idea of Truth, and indeed 
according to any sense of the word Truth. But 
Tertullian proves the eternity of Truth, from Christ 
having given that name to himself. Tertullian there- 
fore must have believed that Christ was as eternal 
as Truth. 

101. Tertull. adv. Judceos, c. 7- p. 189. 
Among other arguments, by which he proves Je- 

h Quam ergo Dominus om- veritatem se non consuetudi- 

nium bonorum et demonstra- nem cognominavit. Si semper 

tor et acceptator Deus in semet- Christus, et prior omnibus, ae- 

ipso circumtulit, quis de bono que Veritas sempiterna et anti- 

ejus late retractet ? qua res. 

1 Dominus noster Christus 



186 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



sus to be the Messiah, he appeals to the prophets 
who foretold his universal empire ; and he shews, 
that these predictions were completed by the Gen- 
tiles believing in Jesus, and by Christianity being 
spread over the whole world. This is the earliest 
passage, which I remember to have seen, in which 
the Gospel is expressly said to have been preached 
in Britain. Tertullian wrote this treatise early in 
the third century : and he says, that " parts of Bri- 
" tain, which the Romans had never reached, were 
" now subject to Christ." This testimony of Ter- 
tullian concerning the conversion of Britain is ques- 
tioned by Mosheim, (Com. de Reb. ante Const, cent. 
II. init.) but apparently without reason. Assertions 
of the wide diffusion of the Gospel among barbarous 
nations may be found in Justin Martyr, Dial, cum 
Tryph. 117. p. 210-1. and Irenseus, I. 10, 2. p. 49. 
Tertullian shews, that all the other empires of the 
world had been limited, " but the kingdom and name 
" of Christ is extended every where, is believed 
" every where, is had in reverence by all the na- 
" tions enumerated above, reigns every where, is 

" worshipped every where he is to all a King, 

" to all a Judge, to all God and Lord k ." 

102. Tertull. adv. Judceos, c. 9. p. 192. 
It appears, that the Jews had objected to the 
Christians, that whereas Isaiah had predicted that 
the Messiah should be called Emmanuel, Jesus had 
never borne that name, and therefore could not be 
the Messiah. Tertullian answers this objection in 



k Christi autem regnum et 
nomen ubique porrigitur, ubi- 
que creditur, ab omnibus gen- 
tibus supra enumeratis colitur, 



ubique regnat, ubique adoratur 
omnibus Rex, omnibus Ju- 
dex, omnibus Deus et Dominus 
est. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D.200. 187 



this treatise, which was written expressly against 
the Jews, and again in his work against Marcion, 
III. 12. In each place he uses almost the same 
words ; and since they contain a very strong asser- 
tion of Christ's divinity, I shall refer to them both 
in giving a summary of Tertullian's argument. He 
says, that where this prophecy is claimed as being 
fulfilled in Jesus, there is added an interpretation of 
the word Emmanuel, viz. God ivith us : so that we 
are to consider not merely the sound of the word, 
but its signification. For the Hebrew word Emma- 
nuel is peculiar to Isaiah's own nation : but the 
meaning, God with us, is common to all nations, 
i. e. it may be expressed in corresponding words in 
all languages. We are therefore to see, whether the 
idea which is contained in these words has been ap- 
plied to Christ : i. e. whether by us who believe in 
Jesus he has really been called and considered God 
with us. Tertullian then appeals to those Jews who 
had been converted to Christianity; and he observes, 
that when they said in their own language Jesus is 
God with us, they did actually pronounce the very 
word Emmanuel ; so that Isaiah's prophecy was li- 
terally fulfilled by the Jews themselves. 

The followers of Marcion also used the Hebrew 
word Emmanuel, when speaking of Jesus : but all 
nations whatever fulfilled the meaning of the pro- 
phecy, when each in their respective language called 
Jesus God ivith us. " But if Emmanuel means 
" God with us, but the God, who is with us, is 
" Christ, who is also in us, (for as many of ijou 
66 as have been baptized unto Christ have put on 
" Christ, Gal. iii. 27.) it as much belongs to Christ 
" in the signification of the name, which is God 



188 TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



" with us, as in the sound of the name, which is 
" Emmanuel. And thus it is evident, that he is 
" already come, who was prophesied of as Emma- 
" nuel : because that which Emmanuel signifies is 
" come, viz. God with us V 

In a few words, Tertullian's argument is this ; 
Isaiah foretold that the Messiah should be called 
Go d with us : Jesus was always considered and 
called God by the Christians : Jesus is therefore the 
Messiah foretold by Isaiah. But we may draw some 
other important conclusions from this passage. Not 
the Christians only, but the Jews, applied this pro- 
phecy of Isaiah to the Messiah : so that if Jesus was 
born of a virgin, and worshipped as God, we have 
the authority even of the Jews themselves for be- 
lieving him to be the Messiah. Again, Tertullian 
not only tells us in express words, that Jesus was 
worshipped as God by the Christians, but it is plain 
from his words, that the Jews were aware of his 
being so worshipped. The Jews did not say, that 
Isaiah's prophecy was inapplicable to Jesus, because 
he was not considered as God, but merely because 
the very Hebrew word Emmanuel was not applied 
to him. By the same arguments they might con- 
tend, that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he 
does not bear the Hebrew name, which signifies the 
Lord our Righteousness ; (Jer. xxiii. 6.) or they 
might say, that we do not worship the one true God, 

1 Quod si Emmanuel nobis- nominis, quod est Emmanuel, 

cum Deus est, Deus autem no- Atque ita constat venisse jam 

biscum Christus est, qui etiam ilium qui prsedicabatur Erama- 

in nobis est : quotquot enim &c. nuel, quia quod significat Em- 

tam proprius est Christus in manuel venit, id est, nobiscum 

significatione nominis, quod est Deus. adv. Marc. III. 12. p. 

nobiscum Deus, quam in sono 403. 



TERTULLI ANUS, A. D. 200. 



189 



because we do not pronounce His name with those 
Hebrew sounds, which express His title I AM. 

But Tertullian's own testimony is particularly va- 
luable, since he tells us, that whatever name might 
be given to Christ, he was in fact worshipped as 
God : and we may introduce here a passage some- 
what similar from his treatise upon the Resurrection 
of the Flesh, c. 20. where he is censuring those per- 
sons who interpret all the prophecies figuratively : 
and he observes very properly, that there cannot be 
a figure without a reality, as there cannot be a re- 
flection without a body to be reflected, nor a shadow 
without a substance. He then says, speaking of the 
same prophecy of Isaiah, " the Virgin conceived in 
" the womb — not figuratively : and brought forth 
" Emmanuel, Jesus, who is God with us — not me- 
" taphorically m ." 

103. Tertull. adv. Judceos. c. 12. p. 198. 

In this same treatise he again appeals to the uni- 
versal diffusion of Christianity as a completion of 
prophecy, and an evidence of Jesus being the Mes- 
siah. The same passage is also to be found nearly 
word for word in the work against Marcion, III. 20. 
His words are, " Behold all nations emerging from 
" the gulf of human error to the Lord God the 
" Creator, and to God His Christ n ." 
104. Tertull. Be Prescript. H<zret. c. 20. p. 208. 

I give the following quotation, as shewing, that 
even many heretics did not deny the divinity of 
Jesus, but only disputed upon certain modifications 

m Nam et Virgo concepit in de voragine erroris humani ex- 

utero, non figurate : et peperit inde emergentes ad Dominum 

Emmanuelem, nobiscum Deum Deum Creatorem, et ad Deum 

Jesum, non oblique, p. 337. Christum ejus. 

n Aspice universas nationes 



190 TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



of the doctrine. Tertullian wrote this treatise pur- 
posely to convict the heretics of error : and having 
mentioned the corruptions of scripture which cer- 
tain sects had introduced, he proposes to consider 
the whole history of the evangelical and apostolical 
writings, that he might discover what persons were 
most likely to have preserved the Christian doctrine 
pure and genuine. He begins thus ; " Christ Jesus 
" our Lord, whoever he be, if he will allow me to 
" speak thus of him, of whatever God he is the 
" Son ; man and God, of whatever matter ; of what- 
66 ever faith he be the teacher ; of whatever reward 
" he be the pro miser ; himself declared, while he 
" was upon earth, either openly to the people, or 
" separately to his disciples, what he was, what he 
" had been, what Will of his Father he was execut- 
" ing, what he appointed for man to do °." 

The beginning of this sentence seems to shew, 
that the points then chiefly in dispute were in what 
manner Christ was the Son of God, and in what 
manner his human nature was united to the divine. 
Tertullian waves the consideration of these points 
for the present, but he seems to feel himself at li- 
berty to assume from the concession even of his op- 
ponents, that in some way or other Christ was God, 
and that in some way or other the divine nature 
was united to the human. This is an important 
fact: for with whatever qualifications and restric- 

0 Christus Jesus Dominus fuisset, quam Patris voluntatem 

noster, permittat dicere interim, administraret, quid liomini a- 

quisquis est, cujuscunque Dei gendum determinaret, quamdiu 

Alius, cujuscunque materia? ho- in terris agebat, ipse pronuntia- 

mo et I)eus, cujuscunque fidei bat, sive populo palam, sive 

prseceptor, cujuscunque merce- discentibus seorsum. 
dis repromissor, quid esset, quid 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 191 



tions the term God may have been applied to the 
Son, the heretics must have seen very strong reasons 
for applying it at all, or they would have withheld 
it altogether. In what sense Tertullian used the 
term, we have seen at the beginning of these quota- 
tions. 

105. Tertull. de Prescript. Hceret. c. 48. p. 221. p 
We may also learn Tertullian's own sentiments 

by observing what he says of the tenets of heretics. 
Among others he mentions Cerinthus, who lived in 
the time of St. John; and Tertullian tells us, that 
this heretic " taught that Christ was begotten in 
" the ordinary way by Joseph, and that he was a 
" mere man without any divinity V Tertullian of 
course selected those points in which Cerinthus dif- 
fered from the catholic church and from himself : 
it follows therefore from this passage, that the ca- 
tholic church did not believe Christ to be a mere 
man, but it believed in his divinity : and since 
Cerinthus was considered a heretic in his own time, 
it is not too much to quote this passage as a proof 
of Christ's divinity being believed by Christians not 
only in Tertullian's days, but during the lifetime 
of the apostle St. John, which in fact carries us up 
to the very fountain and spring of the gospel doc- 
trine. 

106. Tertull. De Prescript. Hceret. c. ult. p. 223. 
He mentions also another heretic called Theodo- 

p When I published the first sons still doubt, I have suffered 

edition of this work, I was ra- the testimonies taken from it to 

ther inclined to look upon the remain. 

whole of this treatise as genuine. c i Christum ex semine Joseph 

I now think that the latter part, natum proponit, hominem il- 

from the forty-sixth chapter, lum tantummodo sine divini- 

was probably not written by tate contendens. 
Tertullian : but as some per- 



192 TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



tus, who lived at Constantinople, and he says of 
him, " that after being apprehended as a Christian, 
" and denying his religion, he never ceased speak- 
" ing blasphemies against Christ : for he introduced 
" a doctrine, by which he called Christ a mere man, 
" but denied him to be God : he held indeed that 
" he was born of a virgin by the Holy Ghost, but 
" that he was nothing but a mere man, with no au- 
" thority above other men, except that of righteous- 
" ness only r ." This passage also shews, that Ter- 
tullian did not consider Christ to be a mere man ; 
but that he believed him to be God, and considered 
the denial of this doctrine to be a blasphemous he- 
resy. I have already alluded to the assertion of Dr. 
Priestley, that the early Fathers mention no heretics 
except the Gnostics ; and he wishes us to believe, 
that Tertullian did not consider Unitarians as he- 
retics s . If the Unitarians agree with Theodotus in 
calling Christ a mere man, and denying him to be 
God, then Tertullian did consider the Unitarian doc- 
trines to be heretical ; and it matters little whether 
Tertullian was speaking of the Gnostics or no, if 
part of the Gnostic creed was the same as that of 
the Unitarians. Dr. Priestley himself speaks of 
Theodotus as an Unitarian, and Tertullian in ex- 
press terms speaks of him as a heretic. We may 
observe also, that Theodotus must have found irre- 

r Accedit bis Theodotus hse- negaret : ex Spiritu quidem 

reticus Byzantius : qui postea- Sancto natum ex virgine, sed 

quam Christi pro nomine com- hominem solitarium atque nu- 

prehensus negavit, in Christum dum, nulla alia prae eaeteris, nisi 

blasphemare non destitit : do- sola justitise auctoritate. 

ctrinam enim introduxit, qua s History of early Opinions, 

Christum hominem tantummo- I. p. 289. 
do diceret, Deum autem ilium 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



193 



sistible evidence for the miraculous conception, or 
he would never have admitted what was so entirely 
contrary to the other parts of his new creed. He 
certainly must have been convinced of the beginning 
of St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels being ge- 
nuine, or he would never have admitted a doctrine 
which exposed him so palpably to the charge of in- 
consistency and self-contradiction. 

Attempts have been made of late years to prove 
those parts of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. 
Luke, which relate the miraculous conception, to be 
spurious : and in the Improved Version these pas- 
sages are printed in Italics. These attempts have 
been refuted by several writers. It is allowed even 
by the Unitarians, that the passages, to which they 
object, are found in every MS. and every version : 
and when we remember that the Syriac version was 
made early in the second century, if not at the end 
of the first, we must allow that the imposture was 
at least extremely old. The only reason for ques- 
tioning their authenticity is taken from the fact, 
that the Ebionites, one of the earliest heretical sects, 
omitted this part of St. Matthew's Gospel, as Mar- 
cion, a heretic of the second century, rejected the 
beginning of St. Luke. 

In the Introduction to the Improved Version it 
is asserted, that " they are treated by Marcion with 
" the most contemptuous ridicule : see Tert. de 
" Carn. Chr. sect. 2." But the writer of this passage 
had either not read Tertullian, or did not under- 
stand him. The contemptuous ridicule is Tertul- 
lian's, not Marcion's : Tertullian, in a strain of irony 
and sarcasm, represents Marcion's objections, and 

o 



194 TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 

ends with saying, " Such, I imagine, are the argu- 
ts ments by which you have dared to destroy the 
" original documents of Christ V The Unitarians 
seem to conclude, that Marcion rejected these pas- 
sages from reasons of criticism : but this is an un- 
founded assumption, or rather the perversion of a 
fact. Marcion rejected them, not because he denied 
the miraculous conception, but because he denied the 
proper humanity of Christ : he denied that Christ had 
been born at all, and contended that his body was a 
mere phantom ; but he never pretended that his own 
Gospel was the genuine composition of St. Luke : 
he did not even call it by the name of that evange- 
list u : he did not style it the genuine or improved 
version of St. Luke, but he was more honest and 
more consistent, he called it simply the Gospel. It 
must be remembered also, that the Gospel of St. 
Luke was not the only part of the scriptures which 
Marcion mutilated. He entirely rejected four of 
St. Paul's Epistles, the two to Timothy, and those to 
Titus and the Hebrews ; and he arranged the others 
in an order totally different from that which was ge- 
nerally followed. Even those Epistles, which he re- 
tained, were altered and mutilated by himself or his 

1 His, opinor, consiliis tot stantiam prseferat, nullam fidem 

originalia instrumenta Christi repromittat de plenitudine ti- 

delere, Marcion, ausus es. tuli, et professione debita aucto- 

u Contra Marcion Evangelio, ris. Tertul. adv. Marc. IV. 2. p. 

scilicet suo, nullum adscribit 414. See also Irenseus, III. 1 1. 7. 

auctorem, quasi non licuerit il 11 p. 190. andc. 12. p. 198. Origen. 

titulum quoque adfingere, cui in Joan. torn. X. vol. IV. p. 165. 

nefas non fuit ipsum corpus quoted at N°. 256. Lactantius, 

evertere. Et possem hie jam N°. 364. There are some judi- 

gradum figere, non agnoscen- cious remarks upon this subject 

dum contendens opus, quod non in Hug, vol. I. p. 72. (Transla 

erigat fontem, quod nullam con- tion.) 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



195 



successors x . He also rejected the Apocalypse ? : and 
according to Theodoret, he rejected the whole of the 
Old Testament z . It would be trifling to ask, 
whether any part of St. Luke's Gospel is to be pro- 
nounced spurious upon the authority of such an au- 
dacious innovator as this : nor does there seem any 
good reason., why the Unitarians should follow the 
example of Marcion in one instance and reject it in 
the others : they ought, if they wish to be consistent, 
either to admit the whole of St. Luke's Gospel, as 
they admit St. Paul's Epistles ; or if they agree with 
Marcion in mutilating St. Luke, they should go all 
lengths with him, and mutilate St. Paul also. The 
original passage in Epiphanius a will shew what cre- 
dit ought to be given to Marcion's authority in re- 
jecting the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel. " I will 
" now come to his (Marcion's) writings, or rather 
* e his audacities. For he admits a Gospel, that of 
" Luke and no other, which is mutilated at the be- 
" ginning, on account of the conception of our Sa- 
" viour, and his appearing in the flesh. Nor was 
" it the beginning only which was mutilated by this 
" corruptor of himself rather than of the Gospel : but 
f at the end also and in the middle he cut out many 
f* parts of the words of truth : he also added others 
" beside what is there written." Epiphanius after- 
wards informs us that Marcion's gospel began with 
those words, " In the fifteenth year of Tiberius &c." 

x See Iren. I. 27. 2. p. 106. z Theodoret. Haer. Fab. I. 

Tertul. adv. Marc. IV. 5: V. 24. p. 210. See also Athanasius, 

17. 21. Origen. in Rom. 1. X. ad Episc. Mg. et Lyb. 4. vol. 

§. 43. p. 687. Hieron. Procera. I. p. 273. Epiphan. Hser. XLII. 

in Epist. ad Tit. Epiphan. Hser. 4. vol. I. p. 305. 
XLII. * Hgen XLII. vol. I. p. 309. 

y Tertul. adv. Marc. IV. 5. 

o 2 



196 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



and the Improved Version adopts this as the be- 
ginning of what it conceives to be the authentic 
writing of St. Luke, except that it also receives as 
genuine the four first verses of the first chapter. 
Epiphanius however expressly tells us, that Marcion 
rejected these four verses : so inconsistent are the 
Unitarian translators in following the authority of 
Marcion ! 

The Unitarians might also have referred to Tatian 9 
as an authority for mutilating the Gospels : for Theo- 
doret tells us l \ that 66 Tatian composed the gospel 
" called Diatessaron, having expunged the genealo- 
" gies, and every thing else which proves the Lord 
" to have been born of the seed of David according 
" to the flesh." This exactly agrees with what was 
said above of Marcion having rejected part of St. 
Luke's Gospel, not because he denied the divinity of 
Christ, but because he denied his humanity. After 
the death of his master Justin, Tatian adopted the 
heresy of those Gnostics, who believed the body of 
Jesus to have been unsubstantial : and I may add, 
that in the opinion of Theodoret, the Diatessaron of 
Tatian was decidedly an heretical book. 

Again, the writer of the above passage says, that 
Marcion objected to " the prefatory chapters of 
"Matthew and Luke:" which is another mistate- 
ment. Marcion never noticed St. Matthew's Gospel 
at all : he appears not to have admitted any of the 
Gospels, except that of St. Luke ; and this, as we 
have seen, he mutilated and altered according to his 
own opinions. The only evidence, which we have 
against the authenticity of the beginning of St. Mat- 



b Hger. Fab. I. 20. vol. IV. p. 208. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



197 



thew's Gospel, is contained in the fact mentioned 
above, that the Ebionites rejected it : but if we read 
the extract from the Ebionite gospel, which Epipha- 
nius has preserved, it is plain that what these here- 
tics called the Gospel of St. Matthew c , was a com- 
position, or rather a compilation of their own, which 
in some points differed totally from the Gospel of St. 
Matthew : they altered, omitted, or inserted what- 
ever they pleased ; so that no argument whatever 
can be drawn, concerning the genuineness of any par- 
ticular passage in the received Gospel, from the fact 
of the Ebionites not having retained it : beside 
which, we learn from Theodoret d , that it was only 
one branch of the Ebionites who thought Jesus to 
have been a mere man, and who used the Gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews : another branch of them 
believed that Jesus was born of a Virgin, and used 
only the Gospel of St. Matthew : it is plain therefore 
that these latter Ebionites used the whole of St. 
Matthew's Gospel : and the Cerinthians, who were 
prior to the Ebionites, are expressly said to have ad- 
mitted the genealogy in that Gospel e : so that the 
argument against the genuineness of the first part of 
it rests entirely and solely upon one division of the 
Ebionites ; and yet the Unitarians would persuade 
us that the authority of these heretics and of Mar- 
cion is to prevail against that of all the writers of 
the three first centuries. For it must be remem- 
bered that these very chapters are alluded to by Ig- 
natius, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Clement of Alex- 
andria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c. &c. All these 
Fathers undoubtedly believed the beginning of the 

c Heer. XXX. p. 138. e Hser. XXVIII. p. 113. 138, 

d Haer. Fab. II. 1. p. 218. 

O 3 



198 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



two Gospels to be genuine : they must therefore 
have believed the doctrine which these passages 
contain : and the Unitarians themselves will inform 
us what that doctrine is ; it expressly declares the 
divinity of Christ : all these Fathers therefore must 
have believed the divinity of Christ, whether these 
chapters are genuine or no. It is well observed also 
by Hug f , that Celsus, who lived in the second cen- 
tury, and wrote against Christianity, had seen the 
genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and knew that 
the Christians believed them to be true. The pas- 
sage is in Origen. c. Cels. II. 32. vol. I. p. 413. 
107. Tertull. de Anima, c. 41. p. 295. 
In this treatise upon the soul, Tertullian considers 
the soul to contain a mixture of good and evil. The 
good comes to it from God ; the evil from the Devil. 
The good principle may be obscured, but cannot be 
extinguished : and in all persons there is some mix- 
ture of these two principles : and hence the differ- 
ence of good and bad men, according as one or the 
other prevails. " For God alone is withdut sin : 
" and the only man without sin is Christ : because 
" Christ is also God In this sentence it might 
appear at first, that Tertullian calls Christ a man 
in opposition to God : but he is evidently speaking 
of the human nature, which was united to the divine 
in Christ. If he had considered him a mere man, 
and said that he was without sin, he would have 
contradicted what he had said immediately before, 
that God alone is without sin ; which words must of 
course exclude every human being. So that when 

f Introduction to the N. T. cato, et solus homo sine pec- 
translated by Wait, vol.1, p. 46. cato Christus, quia et Deus 
g Solus enim Deus sine pec- Christus. 



TERTULLI ANUS, A. D. 200. 199 



he says afterwards, that the only man without sin is 
Christ ; he cannot mean that he was a man like 
other human beings ; but his meaning is, that the 
only human being, who was ever without sin, was 
not absolutely a man, but he was God with a human 
nature joined to the divine. 

108. TertulL de Anima, c. 55. p. 303. 
Tertullian is here considering the difficult ques- 
tion, what becomes of the soul after its departure 
from the body. Having given the opinion of some 
heathen philosophers, he says, " Christians believe 
" hell h to be, not a mere hollow place, nor a kind of 
" sink of the world, open to the air: but a vast space 
" in a cleft of the earth, and low down, and a depth 
" buried in its very bowels : since we read that 
" Christ passed the three days of death in the heart 
" of the earth ; i. e. in an inner and internal recess, 
" covered up in the earth itself, and shut up within 
" it, and raised upon still lower abysses. But if 
" Christ, who is God, in consequence of his being 
" man, died according to the scriptures, and was 
" buried according to them, and also fulfilled this 
" law, having observed the form of human death in 
" hell ; nor did he ascend to the higher parts of 
" heaven, before he had descended into the lower 
" parts of the earth, that he might there make him- 

" self known to the patriarchs and prophets 

" you have grounds for believing in the subterraneous 
" region of hell, and for refuting those who think, 
" proudly enough, that the souls of the faithful are 
" not deserving of hell i ." 

h I have translated inferi hell, sages of the Bible, 
because it is the word used in > Nobis inferi non nuda ea- 
the Creed, and in some pas- vositas, nec subdivalis aliqua 

o 4 



200 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



We need not trouble ourselves with examining 
Tertullian's opinion concerning the nature and lo- 
cality of the abode of departed spirits. If he erred, 
it was from taking too literally the words of scrip- 
ture, where our Saviour speaks of the heart of the 
earthy (Matt. xii. 40.) and St. Paul of the lower parts 
of the earth, (Eph. iv. 9.) and of the deep, Rom. x. 
7. He at least reasons correctly in asserting, that 
there must be such a place somewhere, because Je- 
sus Christ passed part of three days in that place : 
and this is all which he wishes to prove. What he 
says concerning Christ making himself known to the 
patriarchs and prophets is evidently taken from the 
expressions of St. Peter, iii. 19. and iv. 6. Tertul- 
lian delivers the same opinion in c. 7. of this trea- 
tise, and many of the other Fathers agreed with 
him k . 

What we have to observe in this passage is the 
expression, that " Christ, who is God, died and was 
" buried, and descended into hell, because he was 



mundi sentina creduntur : sed 
in fossa terree et in alto vastitas, 
et in ipsis visceribus ejus ab- 
strusa profunditas. Siquidem 
Christo in corde terrae triduum 
mortis legimus expunctum, id 
est, in recessu intimo et interno, 
et in ipsa terra operto et intra 
ipsam clauso, et inferioribus ad- 
buc abyssis superstructo. Quod 
si Christus Deus, quia et homo, 
mortuus secundum scripturas, 
et sepultus secus easdem, huic 
quoque legi satisfecit, forma hu- 
manse mortis apud inferos fun- 
ctus ; nec ante ascendit in subli- 
miora ccslorum, quam descendit 
in inferiora terrarum, ut illic 
patriarchas et prophetas com- 



potes sui faceret; habes et re- 
gionem inferum subterranearn 
credere, et illos cubito pellere, 
qui satis superbe non putant 
animas fidelium inferis dignas. 

k Hennas, III. Sitnii. 9. 16. 
Irenseus, IV. 27. 2. p. 264. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 4. p. 
526. VI. 6. p. 762. Theodotus 
ad fin. Clem. Alex. p. 973. Hip- 
pol. de Antichristo, §. 26, 45. 
Origen. c. Celsum, II. 43. In 
Exod. Horn. 6. §. 6. in Reg. 
Horn. II. vol. II. p. 497. in 
Psalm, p. 553. Eusebius, Dem. 
Evang. p. 377. 501. Athanas. 
vol. I. p. 905. 933. 946. 1113. 
1 154. 1191. Epiphan. vol. I. 
p. 394. 789. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



201 



** man." The union of the two natures in Christ 
could not have been more strongly expressed. Ter- 
tullian is wishing to prove that the souls of all men 
go to an intermediate place : and he proves it, be- 
cause Christ, who wished to submit to all the conse- 
quences of mortality, went thither. If Christ had 
been a mere man, the reasoning would be perfectly 
inconclusive : it would involve a petitio principii : 
but since Christ was not obliged to die and to de- 
scend into hell, and yet submitted to all these things 
because he submitted to become man, it follows that 
one of the consequences of mortality must be, that 
the soul, when it leaves the body, goes into a sepa- 
rate place. Tertullian must therefore have believed, 
that the human nature was adventitious to Christ, 
or, as he says expressly in this passage, that Christ 
was God. 

109. Tertutt. de Came Ckristi, c. 3. &c. p. 308. 
The cause, which led Tertullian to write this 
treatise, is itself a very strong argument for the di- 
vinity of Christ. He wrote it against the heresies 
of Marcion and his disciples Apelles and Valentinus. 
These heretics were so far from denying the divinity 
of Christ, that they denied his humanity ; i. e. they 
could not believe that God could be born and be 
subject to all the accidents and infirmities of hu- 
manity. Marcion was the leader of this sect. He 
maintained that Christ was not born, and that he 
did not really bear our human flesh, but merely the 
semblance of it. His disciple Apelles admitted the 
reality of his flesh, but denied his nativity. Another 
disciple, Valentinus, admitted the reality of his flesh 
and his nativity, but still would not allow that he 
was a man, like other human beings. It is obvious, 



202 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



that the beginnings of the Gospels of St. Matthew 
and St. Luke must have been fatal to Marcion's 
hypothesis : he therefore adopted the easy expedient, 
already mentioned, of pronouncing them spurious ; 
though Tertullian tells us, that he had before ac- 
knowledged them to be genuine. 

The object of Tertullian in this treatise is to prove, 
in opposition to these heretics, that Christ did really 
take upon him our human flesh. It was the opinion 
of Tertullian, as of most of the early Fathers, that 
we shall rise again with our bodies, exactly as they 
are now : and he brings as an argument the identity 
of Christ's body before and after his resurrection. 
Now if Marcion's hypothesis were true, that Christ 
had not a real body, the argument of Tertullian 
would of course fail; because he could not reason 
from the apparent body of Christ to the real body of 
man. Tertullian therefore labours to prove in this 
treatise, that Christ did actually take upon him our 
human flesh, not the semblance of flesh : and he 
begins with refuting Marcion concerning the reality 
of his nativity. 

w According to your notion, you must either think 
" it impossible or unsuitable to God to be born. But 
" nothing is impossible to God, except what He does 
" not wish. We must therefore consider, whether 
" he did not wish to be born. If there had been any 
" reason why God did not wish to be born, he would 
" not have made himself appear like a man. For 
" who, that sees a man, would say that he was not 
" born ? So that whatever God did not wish to be, 

" he would not wish to seem to be. You cannot 

" say, that His reason for not wishing it was, lest if 
" He had been born, and really put on man, he would 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D.200. 203 



" have ceased to be God, by losing what He was and 
" becoming what He was not. For God is in no 
" danger of losing His condition. But you say, I 
" deny that God was so changed into man, as to be 
" born and to do works in the flesh, because he who 
" is without end must necessarily be also unchange- 
" able : for to be changed into something else is the 
" end of that which it was before. Change there- 
" fore is incompatible with Him, with whom end is 
" incompatible." 

Tertullian answers, that this is true as to all cre- 
ated things ; " but nothing is like to God : his nature 
" is different from the condition of all things. If 
" therefore those things, which are different from 
" God, and from which God is different, when they 
" are changed, lose that which they were before, 
" where will be the difference between the Deity 
" and those things, unless the contrary hold good ; 
" i. e. unless God can be changed into all things, and 

" yet continue what he was ? You have read 

" and believed that angels have been changed into 
** a human form, and borne such a reality of body, 
" that Abraham washed their feet, and Lot was 
" rescued from the men of Sodom by their hands. 

" What was possible for angels, who are in- 

" ferior to God, that they might be changed into a 
" human body and yet continue angels, will you 
" deny this power to God, who is more powerful, as 
" if Christ were not able really to put on man, and 
" yet continue God 1 ?" 

1 Necesse est quatenus hoc sibile, nisi quod non vult. An 

putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, ut ergo noluerit nasci, (quia si 

aut impossibilem aut inconve- voluit, et potuit, et natus est,) 

nientem Deo existimaveris nati- consideremus. Ad compendium 

vitatem. Sed Deo nihil impos- decurro. Si enim nasci se Deus 



204 TERT ULLI ANUS, A.D. 200. 



Having thus proved that it was neither impossi- 
ble for God to be born, nor dangerous to His divi- 
nity, he shews that all the sufferings and weaknesses 
of a newborn infant were not unworthy of God, 
because the men, whom he came to redeem, must 
all have passed through those sufferings and weak- 
nesses. He quotes the words of St. Paul, God has 
chosen the foolish things of the world to confound 
the wise, (1 Cor. i. 27.) and observes that there 
can be nothing imagined, which would appear so 
foolish to the world, as the idea " that God should 
" be born, and of a virgin, and that he should be- 
" come flesh m ." He then very justly reproaches 
Marcion for denying the nativity of Christ, but 
allowing his crucifixion, as if the latter was not as 
unworthy of God as the former. " There are other 



noluisset quacumque de causa, 
nec hominem se videri praesti- 
tisset. Nam quis hominem vi- 
dens eum negaret natum ? Ita 
quod noluisset esse, nec videri 
omnino voluisset. Non po- 
les dicere, ne si natus fuisset et 
hominem vere induisset, Deus 
esse desisset, a mittens quod erat, 
dum fit quod non erat. Peri- 
culum enim status sui Deo nul- 
lum est. Sed ideo, inquis, nego 
Deum in hominem vere con- 
versum, ita ut et nasceretur et 
carne corporaretur : quia qui sine 
fine est, etiam inconvertibilis sit 
necesse est : converti enim in 
aliud, finis est pristini : non 
competit ergo conversio ejus, 
cui non competit finis. 

Sed nihil Deo par est : natura 
ejus ab omnium rerum condi- 
tione distat. Si ergo quae a 
Deo distant, a quibus Deus di- 
stat, cum convertuntur, amit- 



tunt quod fuerunt : ubi erit di- 
versitas divinitatis a caeteris re- 
bus, nisi ut contrarium obti- 
neat? id est, ut Deus et in 
omnia converti possit, et qualis 

est perseverare ? Angelos 

Creatoris conversos in effigiem 
humanam aliquando legisti et 
credidisti, et tantam corporis 
gestasse veritatem, ut et pedes 
eis laverit Abraham, et manibus 
ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis 

Loth Quod ergo Angelis 

inferioribus Deo licuit, uti con- 
versi in corpulentiam humanam 
angeli nihilominus permane- 
rent, hoc tu potentiori Deo au- 
feres, quasi non valuerit Chri- 
stus vere hominem indutus Deus 
perseverare ? 

m . non erit tarn stultum 

quam credere in Deum natum, 
et quidem ex virgine, et quidem 
carneum. c. 4. p. 310. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 205 



" things [which the world think] equally foolish, 
" which relate to the indignities and sufferings of 
" God. Or perhaps it might seem wisdom to the 
" worki, that God should be crucified ! Deny this, 
66 Marcion, even rather than the other. For which 
" is more unworthy of God ? which would He be 
" more ashamed of, to be born or to die ? to bear 

" our flesh or the cross ? But answer me this, 

" W as not God really crucified ? was He not really 

" dead, as He was really crucified ? Our faith 

" therefore is vain ; and all that we hope in Christ 
" is a phantom. Thou most wicked of men ! who 
" furnishest excuses to the murderers of God n ! For 
f* Christ suffered nothing from them, if he did not 
" really suffer — — Christ would not be called man, 
" without flesh ; nor the Son of man, without some 
" human parent : as he would not be called God, 
" without the Spirit of God ; nor the Son of God, 
" without God for his Father. Thus his affinity to 
" each substance rendered him God and man ; on 
" one side born, on the other not born : on one side 
" fleshly, on the other spiritual : on one side weak, 
" on the other passing strong : on one side dying, 
" on the other living. Which peculiarity of condi- 
" tions, the divine and human, with an equal reality 
" of each nature, is proved by the same test of 
" spirit and flesh. His miracles proved the Spirit of 
" God : his sufferings proved the flesh of man. If 
" the miracles were not without the Spirit, the suf- 
" ferings were not without the flesh. If the flesh 
" with the sufferings was feigned, therefore the Spi- 

n This strong expression is also used by Dionysius of Alex- 
andria as quoted at N°. 314. 



206 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



" rit with the miracles was false. Why do you halve 

" Christ by a lie? He was altogether reality 

" if not, he was a phantom even after his resur- 
" rection — — he tricks, and deceives, and deludes 
" the eyes of all, the senses of all> the approach and 
" touch of all. You ought not to have made Christ 
" come from heaven, but from some company of 
" j u ggl ers : an ^ not a God beside being man, but a 
" mere man and a conjuror °." 

I have been obliged to give this long extract, be- 
cause it contains so many and such positive asser- 
tions of the divinity of Christ. Tertullian speaks 
of God being born and crucified in the same manner 
that we should speak of Jesus or Christ being born 



0 Sunt plane et alia tam 
stulta, quae pertinent ad contu- 
melias et passiones Dei : aut 
Prudentiam dicant, Deum cruci- 
fixuni. Aufer hoc quoque, Mar- 
cion, immo hoc potius. Quid 
enim indignius Deo ? quid ma- 
gis erubescendum, nasci an rao- 
ri ? carnem gestare,, an crucem ? 

Sed jam hinc responde, 

interfector veritatis, Nonne vere 
crucifixus est Deus? nonne vere 
mortuus, ut vere crucifixus ? 

Falsa est igitur et fides 

nostra : et phantasma erit to- 
tum quod speramus a Christo. 
Scelestissime hominum, qui in- 
teremptores excusas Dei. Nihil 
enim ab eis passus est Christus, 

si nihil vere est passus. 

Aliter non diceretur homo Chri- 
stus sine carne : nec hominis 
filius, sine aliquo parente nomi- 
ne : sicut nec Deus sine Spiritu 
Dei : nec Dei filius sine Deo 
patre. Ita utriusque substantias 
census hominem et Deum ex- 



hibuit : hinc natum, inde non 
natum : hinc carneum, inde spi- 
ritalem : hinc infirmum, inde 
praefortem : hinc morientem, in- 
de viventem. Quae proprietas 
conditionum, divinee et humanae, 
aequa utique naturae utriusque 
veritate dispunctaest eademfide, 
et spiritus, et carnis. Virtutes 
Spiritum Dei, passiones carnem 
hominis probaverunt. Si vir- 
tutes non sine Spiritu, perinde 
et passiones non sine carne. Si 
caro cum passionibus ficta, et 
Spiritus ergo cum virtutibus fal- 
sus. Quid dimidias mendacio 
Christum ? Totus Veritas fuit. 

Fuit itaque phantasma et- 

iam post resurrectionem 

Ecce fallit, et decipit, et circum- 
venit omnium oculos, omnium 
sensus, omnium accessus et con- 
tactus. Ergo jam Christum non 
de cselo deferre debueras, sed de 
aliquo circulatorio coetu : nec 
Deum praster hominem, sed 
magum hominem. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



207 



and crucified. It is plain also that he meant the 
one only God, uncreated and unchangeable. We 
learn further, that Marcion never thought of dis- 
puting the divinity of Christ. It is true that he 
made a difference between Christ and the God of 
the Old Testament ; but that does not affect the 
present argument. No person would now defend 
the absurd notions of Marcion concerning the two 
or the three principles : it is sufficient for our pur- 
pose, that Marcion considered Christ to be God: and 
so convinced was he of his divinity, that he even ran 
into the wild hypothesis of Christ having an unsub- 
stantial and only apparent body. The Gospel history 
compelled him to acknowledge, that the attributes 
of God and man were given to Christ : but he chose 
to imagine, that the human functions were dis- 
charged by him not really, but only in appearance. 
110. Tertull. de Came Christi, c. 14. p. 319- 
He goes on to shew, in opposition to Marcion, that 
there was a reason why Christ should assume the 
body of a man, viz. because it was man who had 
fallen, and it was man who was to be saved. But 
there was not the same reason why he should 
assume an angelic body, as Marcion supposed : for 
though some angels have fallen, yet no promise of 
restitution was made to them. It might perhaps be 
said, that Christ assumed an angelic body in order 
to accomplish the salvation of man. Tertullian 
therefore asks, " Why then did he descend to do 
" that, which he meant to perform by an angel? 
" If it was to be done by an angel, why did he do it 
" himself? and if he did it by himself, why was the 
" angel also employed ? It is true indeed that he 
" was called the Angel of great Counsel, that is, 



208 TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 

" the Messenger, which title he had by office, not by 
" nature. For it was he, who was to announce to 
" the world the great intent of his Father, concern- 
" ing the restoration of man. Not that it is there- 
" fore to be understood, that he is such an angel as 
" Gabriel or Michael. For the Son is also sent to 
" the husbandmen by the Lord of the vineyard, like 
" the servants were, to ask for the fruits. But the 
" Son will not on that account be reckoned one of 
" the servants, because he succeeded the servants in 
" their office. I could therefore bring myself more 
" easily to speak of the Son himself as an angel, that 
" is, a messenger of his Father, than of an angel in 
" the Son. But when it is said of the Son himself, 
'" Thou hast made him a little lower than the 
" angels, (Psalm viii. 5. Heb. ii. 7, 9.) how can it 
" seem that he assumed the person of an angel, who 
" was made so much lower than the angels, while 
" he was man, inasmuch as he was flesh and soul 
" and the Son of man ? But inasmuch as he is the 
" Spirit of God, and the Power of the Most High, he 
" cannot be reckoned lower than angels, because he 
" is God and the Son of God p." 

p Cur ergo descendit ad id fructibus petitum. Sed non 

quod per angelum erat expedi- propterea unus ex famulis de- 

turus ? Si per Angelum, quid et putabitur Filius, quiafamulorum 

ipse ? Si per se, quid et Ange- successit officio. Facilius ergo 

\us) Dictus est quidem magni dicam, si forte, ipsum Filium 

consilii Angelus, id est, Nuntius, angelum, id est, nuntium Pa- 

officii non naturae vocabulo. tris, quam angelum in Filio. 

Magnum enim cogitatum Pa- Sed quum de Filio ipso sit pro- 

tris, super hominis scilicet resti- nuntiatum, Minuisti eum modi- 

tutione, annuntiaturus sasculo cum quid citra angelos, quo- 

erat. Non ideo tamen sic an- modo videbitur angelum indu- 

gelus intelligendus, ut aliqui isse, sic infra angelos diminu- 

Gabriel aut Michael. Nam et tus, dum homo sit, qua caro et 

Filius a Domino vineas mittitur anima et Filius hominis ? qua 

ad cultores, sicut et famuli, de autem Spiritus Dei et Virtus 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 209 



All this reasoning about angels seems to be intro- 
duced, because Tertullian was aware of Jesus being 
spoken of in the Old Testament as the Angel or 
Messenger of the covenant. To those who believe, 
as all the early Fathers believed, that the Angel of 
the covenant was no other than God himself, this 
will be sufficient to prove, that Tertullian acknow- 
ledged the divinity of Christ. But if any should 
disbelieve this, we would urge to them, that Ter- 
tullian here expressly asserts that Christ is superior 
to angels : and we would ask, what being is there 
between the ministering spirits and God himself, 
of whose existence we know any thing from scrip- 
ture? Beside which, Tertullian finishes the above 
quotation by expressly saying that Christ is God. 

111. Tertull. de Came Christi, c. 15. p. 320. 
The following short passage is merely brought to 

shew that Marcion, with all his strange opinions, 
acknowledged the divinity of Christ. Tertullian 
concludes an argument against the Marcionites by 
saying, " They acknowledge the man united to the 
" God, and they deny the man 

112. Tertull de Came Christi, c. 17. p. 320. 
After other arguments to prove that Christ had 

really and tangibly a human body, Tertullian shews 
that he must have received a carnal existence from 
his mother : and he points out how worthy it was of 
the counsels of God that Christ should be born of a 
virgin. " He who was to consecrate a new birth, 
44 ought to have been born in a new way : concern- 
" ing which the Lord was to give a sign, as Isaiah 

Altissimi, non potest infra An- ( i Agnoscimt hominem Deo 
gelos haberi, Deus scilicet et mixtum, et negant hominem, 
Dei Filius. 

P 



210 TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



" declared : What is that sign ? ^Behold a virgin 
66 shall conceive in her womb, and bear a Son. 
(S The virgin accordingly conceived and bore Em- 
" manuel, God with us. This is the new birth, 
" when a man is born in God, in which man God 
" was born r ." The union of the divine and human 
nature in the person of Christ could hardly be de- 
clared more plainly. 

Pursuing the same argument, he shews the divine 
and human natures of Christ from these words, 
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that 
which is bom of the Spirit is spirit s : (John iii. 6.) 
for Christ was born of the flesh, inasmuch as he 
was born of Mary : and he was born of the Spirit, 
inasmuch as he was born of God. Against this the 
Valentinians brought another passage of St. John's 
Gospel, (i. 13.) where he says of those who believe 
in Christ, that they are born not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
of God : from which they argued, that Christ was 
not born of the flesh, but of God only. Tertullian 
replies by appealing to the fact, that all believers 
are born of blood and of the will of the flesh, and of 
man by the common law of our nature : but of 



r Nove nasci debebat, novae 
nativitatis dedicator: de qua 
signum daturus Dominus ab 
Esaia praedicabatur. Quod est 
istud signum r Ecce virgo con- 
cipiet in utero, et pariet filium. 
Concepit igitur virgo et peperit 
Emmanuelem, nobiscum Deum. 
Haec est nativitas nova, dum 
homo nascitur in Deo : in quo 
homine Deus natus est. 

s Tertullian quotes — Spiritus 



est, quia Deus Spiritus est, et 
de Deo natus est. It was quoted 
with the same addition at the 
7th council of Carthage. Cypr. 
p. 33 j. I may add, that Gries- 
bach omits to mention A th ana- 
si us, who reads quia Dominus 
spiritus est in the tract de Tri- 
nitate et Spiritu Sancto, of 
which a Latin translation only 
is extant, p. 974. See Routh, 
Rel. Sacr. III. p. 156. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



211 



Christ it is said in a peculiar manner, that he was 
born of God : " for Christ is the Word of God, and 
" with the Word he is the Spirit of God ; and in the 
" Spirit he is the Power of God, and whatever be- 
" longs to God t ." We may again observe, that if 
Christ were a mere man, born in the ordinary way, 
all these numerous arguments to prove his bodily 
substance would never have been used. But the 
heretics denied his bodily substance ; and Tertullian, 
who acknowledged it, did not believe that he was 
born in the ordinary way. Upon either hypothesis 
therefore his divine nature was a fundamental article 
of belief. 

113. Tertull. de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 39. 
p. 348. 

This treatise was written to prove, that we shall 
rise again with our bodies. With the truth or false- 
hood of this doctrine we are not at present con- 
cerned : and in the following quotation Tertullian 
only observes, that the apostolical writings invari- 
ably enforce the doctrine of the resurrection, but with 
this difference; that to the Jews it was preached, 
not as a new doctrine, but one in which they all, 
with the exception of the Sadducees, believed. " The 
" apostles had nothing to do, when preaching to the 
" Israelites, but to unseal (i. e. to explain) the Old 
" Testament, and to seal (i. e. to prove or confirm) 
" the New : and particularly to preach God in 
" Christ"." This therefore was the leading doc- 

t - quia Verbum Dei, et gotiimi fuit, dumtaxat apud Is- 

cum Verbo Dei Spiritus, et in raelem, quam veteris Testamenti 

Spiritu Dei Virtus, et quicquid resignandi, et novi consignandi, 

Dei est Christus. p. 322. et potius jam Dei in Christo 

u Apostolis nullum aliud ne- concionandi. 

P 2 



212 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



trine in the Gospel according to Tertullian, that 
God was in Christ. 

114. Tertull. de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 44. 

p. 351. 

We must again remember, that we are not at all 
concerned with the accuracy of Tertullian's reason- 
ing about the resurrection of the flesh : we have 
only to inquire whether he believed Christ to be 
God. Having quoted 2 Cor. iv. 10. Always hear- 
ing about in the body the dying of the Lord 
Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might he made 
manifest in our body, he asks, " Shall then the 
" life of Christ, which is eternal, unceasing, incor- 
" rupt, which is the life of God, be made manifest 
" in a thing which is unconnected with salvation, 
66 in a substance doomed to perpetual dissolution x ?" 
He means to infer, that if the life of Christ is to be 
made manifest in our bodies, those bodies must cer- 
tainly be eternal : and one reason why he draws this 
conclusion is, because the life of Christ is the life of 
God ; i. e. because Christ is God. 

115. Tertull. de Mesurrectione Carnis, c. 45. 

p. 352. 

In Eph. iv. 32. we read forgiving one an- 
other, even as God for Christ s sake hath for- 
given you. The original is — KaQcb<; kou 6 ®eo$ Iv 
Xpia-Tx eyaplaaro vpiv, which would be literally, as 
also God in Christ hath forgiven you ; and there 
seems no reason why the passage should not be so 
translated. Tertullian renders it, " sicut et Deus 
" vobis donavit in Christo" which can hardly mean 

x In re ergo aliena salutis, in seterna, jugis, incorrupta, jam et 
substantia perpetuee dissolutio- Dei vita ? 
nis, manifestabitur vita Christi 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D.200. 213 



for sake of Christ. It is singular that there should 
be so many various readings in this passage. Ter- 
tullian himself quotes it in another place > 7 , " sicut 
" et Christus donavit nobis :" some MSS. read it so : 
some read, as God hath forgiven you ; some, as the 
Lord hath forgiven you; which seems rather to shew 
that the passage was understood, not as we translate 
it, for sake of Christ, but as if God and Christ were 
really the same. That St. Paul considered it to be 
indifferent, whether he said that God has forgiven 
us, or Christ has forgiven us, seems evident, if we 
compare his words at Eph. iv. 32. with those at Col. 
iii. 13. The two passages are exactly similar ; but 
in the former he says, b ®eo$ ev Xpiarcp lyaplaaTo vixh ; 
in the latter, b Xpiarog lyapivajo vpiv. It might be 
thought that Tertullian in the second passage al- 
luded to above, (de Pud. 2.) quoted Col. iii. 13. ra- 
ther than Eph. iv. 32 ; but his words are more like 
the latter text, and we may observe that when St. 
Paul exhorted the Colossians to forgive one an- 
other, as Christ had forgiven them, he could not 
mean to speak of him as a mere man. Christ, as a 
mere man, could forgive the Jews who crucified 
him ; but in no sense, literal or figurative, could he 
have forgiven the Colossians, to whom St. Paul was 
writing, unless we conceive him to have been more 
than man z . There are other places in the Epistles 
of St. Paul, where the expression &eb$ h Xpiarco is 
deprived of its force by our translation. We render 
Rom. vi. 10, 11. For in that he died, he died unto 
sin once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto 
God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be 

y De Pudicitia, c. i. p. 556. 

z See what is said of Col. iii. 13. at p. 23. 

p 3 



214 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



dead indeed unto sin, hut alive unto God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. I would rather render it, 
For in that he died, he died by sin once : but in 
that he liveth, he liveth by God. Christ died, be- 
cause he was made sin for us: (2 Cor. v. 21.) he 
died therefore by, or in consequence of, the sin, i. e. 
the sinful nature, which was in him : and this is 
the meaning of okeBave Tvj afxapria, not that he died 
unto sin, which has no definite meaning at all. If 
this be correct, the next clause must be translated 
in the same way ; gjjj tS> 6e£, he liveth by God ; i. e. 
by the God, or divine nature, which was in him. 
His human nature caused him to die ; his divine 
nature caused him to live. The next verse I would 
translate thus ; Likewise reckon ye also yourselves 
as dead by sin, but living by God in Christ Jesus 
our Lord. A similar expression occurs in ver. 2. 
drives aneOavo^ev ryj a^apria, ttco$ en ^rjGOfxev ev avrji ; 
which we render, How shall we that are dead to 
sin, live any longer therein f But I would rather 
render it, How shall we that have been dead 
through sin, live any longer therein ? i. e. Having 
felt the deadly effects of sin. viz. that we were all 
under condemnation, if Christ had not freed us, shall 
we live any longer in sin a ? 

It may be doubted, whether anoOvyo-Keiv a^aprla can 
signify to die unto sin b . Schleusner quotes Rom. 
xiv. 8. : but the whole passage may be as well trans- 

a See Rom. vi. 16. bovKoi — mean, to renounce sin, to com- 

apapiaq Bdvarov, % vKaKovji; €iq mit it no more : but this seems 

^iKaioa-vvTjv. Also viii. io. to to have been expressed by a dif- 

a£pa vexpov fo' dpaprlav, to ferent construction, as in Col. 

wveu/xa Z,corj dice SiKaioavvYjV . 11. 20. el qvv untQavtrf arvv t£> ~Kpi- 

b The words, as they are ren- <rrS duo tuv <noi%doov rov Koapov, 

dered in our English version, k. t. A. 
are generally understood to 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



215 



lated, For none of us liveth by, or of himself: and 
no man dieth of himself: for whether we live, we 
live by the Lord, (i. e. by the will of the Lord,) and 
whether we die, we die by the Lord. In each 
place I conceive the dative to signify the thing 
which causes or ordains that we die c . Schleusner 
also quotes Ajax 985. (ed. Musg.) Beotg redvyKev qZto$, 
which is exactly in point ; for it can only mean, he 
died by the decree of the gods. Gal. ii. 19- may be 
translated, For in consequence of the law, I died 
by the law, that I might live by God: in other 
words, The very nature of the law caused that by 
following the law I became dead, (i. e. I was sub- 
ject to condemnation,) that I might live (i. e. I 
might be restored to spiritual life) by the grace of 
God. So also I would translate 1 Pet. iii. 18. Being 
put to death by the flesh , (i. e. being made subject 
to death by his human nature,) but quickened by 
the Spirit d ; (i. e. raised to life again by his divine 
nature,) which is nearly the same expression with 
2 Cor. xiii. 4. Though he was crucified through 
weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God; 
where the construction auOeveiag and ck Iwafxeccg 
Seov has the same force which I would give to the 
dative case in all the above instances ; and Hippo- 

c Our translators have mis- vol. II. p. 97.) Compare Eph. 

taken the force of the dative in i. 13. 

other instances : thus bishop d Athanasius must have un- 

Bull points out that in Eph. iv. derstood the dative case in this 

23. avccveovo-dcu t§ nvevpaTi tov sense, when he said, probably 

vobq i/pSov should be translated, in allusion to this text, 5<a rovro 

to be renewed by the spirit of Geog uv 6 Aoyoq yeyove aa,p^, tm 

your mind. Chrysostom ex- 6ava.roo6ei$ a-apia ^aoTroi^Tr} nctvrat; 

plains it by t£ itvcv^ocri, t£ iv tS t?j eavrov hvvdpei. Orat. I. C. 

v$. (Discourse on the state of Arian. 44. vol. I. p. 449. 
man before the fall. Works, 

p 4 



216 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



lytus quotes it as meaning, that Christ rose in con- 
sequence of the divine nature which was in him e . 
So also in 1 Pet. ii. 24. we should translate Iva roug 
afkapTiaig airoyevo^evoL ryj ^iKaioavvY] gyjo-copev, that we who 
were dead by sins, (in consequence of our sins,) 
shoidd live by righteousness ; or, by his righteous- 
ness, i. e. the righteousness of Christ : and in Gal. v. 
25. el $[i*€v irvevfAOTi, irvevpari kou o-TOi/ZfJiev may be 
translated, If we live by the Spirit, i. e. if it be the 
Holy Spirit which gives us life, let us walk by or 
according to the Spirit. (See Rom. viii. 1, 2. 13 f .) 
If this reasoning be correct, it follows, that when St. 
Paul says of Christ, %jj tco Beco, he meant, that he 
lived by God, i. e. God was the cause of his being 
raised to life : and as the sin, which caused him to 
die, was the human nature residing in him ; by a 
parity of reasoning and of construction we infer, 
that that which raised him to life was God, or the 
divine nature residing in him. 

I was led into this discussion by having observed, 
that the doctrine of God being in Christ seems to be 
asserted by St. Paul, Eph. iv. 32. and by Tertul- 
lian's translation of it. We have the same expres- 
sion in the passage already quoted, Rom. vi. 11. liv- 
ing by God in Christ Jesus our Lord: which I 
conceive to mean, restored to life by God who was 
in Christ Jesus. In 2 Cor. v. 19. St. Paul expressly 
says, God was in Christ, reconciling the world 

e Avva[M<; yap av rov ®€ov kou vol. II. p. 625. 
Ylarfbq 6 vlo<; rov 'fow ccvrov tCpo- f The reader may try the ap- 

yovei vaov. In Gen. vol. II. p. plicability of this construction 

27-8. Athanasius interprets it to the following passages : Rom. 

in the same manner, de Incarn. viii. 24. 2 Cor. v. 15. x. 4. 1 Pet. 

21. vol. I. p. 888; as does the iv. 6. 
anonymous Author apud Ath. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D.200. 



217 



unto himself. In 2 Cor. ii. 17. and xii. 19- he says, 
TV ? speak before God in Christ : and his assertion 
is stronger, if we understand it to mean, We speak 
in the presence of that God whom we know to be in 
Christ. In Phil. iii. 14. St. Paul says, that he presses 
toward the prize of the high calling of that God 
who is in Christ Jesus, t% avco KAycrecos tov Seov lv 
XpiaTco 'Ivja-ov. In Col. ii. 2. the received text reads 

TOV [XVO'TVJpiOV TOV SeOV KOU TIOLTpOg KOU TOV XpiCTTOV, Of tlie 

mystery of God, and of the Father and of Christ : 
but the number of various readings is quite astonish- 
ing, and most of them remarkably support the no- 
tion of Christ's divinity. Thus Clement of Alexan- 
dria twice s quotes it tov fxva-TTjpiov tov Seov h Xp/o-Tw, 
the mystery of God in Christ : others read, of God 
who is Christ ; others, of God Christ; others, of 
God the Father in Christ. A similar expression 
occurs in Col. iii. 3. your life is hid with Christ in 
God. I may finish this discussion by observing, 
that the expression Dens in Christo, God in Christ, 
occurs very frequently in the works of Tertullian. 
116. Tertull. de Eesurrectione Carnis, c. 49. 
p. 356. 

It might be expected, that those words of St. 
Paul, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom 
of God, (1 Cor. xv. 50.) would present some diffi- 
culty to Tertullian in his attempt to prove the re- 
surrection of the flesh : nor need we examine how 
he removes the objection. But in the course of his 
argument, after noticing the preceding words, As is 
the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and 
as is the heavenly, such are they also that are 

§ Strom. V. 10. p. 683. V. 12. p. 694. 



218 TERTUL L I AN U S , A. D. 200. 



heavenly he says, " If Christ, who alone is really 
" heavenly, nay more than heavenly, yet being a 
" man, inasmuch as he was flesh and blood, is not 
" distinguished, as far as those substances are con- 
" cerned, from the earthly quality ; it follows, that 
" those who are called heavenly by St. Paul, are un- 
6 ' derstood to be so called, not with reference to their 
" present substance, but to their future glory h ." 
His reasoning is this : If Christ, whose nature was 
really divine, could yet be called earthy, inasmuch 
as he partook of flesh and blood, it follows, that if 
any men are called heavenly, it must be with re- 
ference to some future state of glory : for in this 
present life, being made of flesh and blood, they 
must be earthy. 

This passage clearly proves that Tertullian con- 
ceived of Christ, that his human nature was as- 
sumed, and that he was himself heavenly, nay more 
than heavenly : by which he must have meant, su- 
perior to angels. But nothing is superior to angels, 
except the divine nature itself. 

117. Tertull. de Hesurrectione Carnis, c. 51. 
p. 357. 

One of the arguments, which he brings to prove 
the resurrection of the flesh, may appear a strange 
one : but the terms of it contain an express declara- 
tion of the divinity of Christ. He says, " But one 
" argument may stand in the place of all the rest, 
" and I have reserved it to close the whole, that I 

h Si enim Christus solus vere qualitate discernitur ; proinde 

ccelestis, immo et supercoe- et qui coelestes secundum ilium, 

lestis, homo tamen, qua caro non de substantia prsesenti, sed 

atque anima, nihilo ex ista sub- de futura claritate coelestes 

stantiarum conditione a choica prsedicari intelliguntur. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 219 

* may really convict the apostle himself of the great- 
" est want of consideration, if shutting his eyes so 
" hastily, as some think, without distinction, with- 
" out condition, he excludes all flesh and blood of 
" every sort from the kingdom of God, i. e. from 
" the palace of heaven itself : when Jesus still sits 
" there, at the right hand of the Father, as man 
" though God ; as the last Adam, although the 
" Word, who was in the beginning i ." If Christ 
were a mere man, exalted by the power of God, this 
argument would of course fail : it would involve a 
petitio principii. Tertullian could not then have 
known whether Jesus was in heaven or no : but he 
assumes, that the man Jesus is in heaven, because 
he is God. 

118. Tertull. adversus Marcionem, 1. II. c. 16. 
p. 389. 

Marcion was charged with believing that there 
were two Gods, one the author of good, who was re- 
vealed in Jesus Christ ; the other the author of evil : 
that the latter was the Creator of the world, and in- 
ferior to the former. Among other objections which 
the Marcionites brought against the God of the Old 
Testament, was his cruelty ; and as an instance of this 
they alleged his severity in inflicting punishment. 
Tertullian very properly answers, that Justice is an 
attribute of God as well as Goodness ; and that the 



' Sed pro omnibus jam sta- 
bit, quod in clausulam reserva- 
vimus, etiam pro apostolo ipso 
revera maxima? inconsiderantiee 
revincendo, si tarn abrupte, ut 
qui dam volunt, clausis (quod 
aiunt) oculis, sine distinctione, 
sine conditione, omnem passim 



carnem et sanguinem a regno 
Dei extrusit, utique et ab ipsa 
regia coelorum ; quum illic ad- 
huc sedeat Jesus ad dexteram 
Patris, homo, etsi Deus ; Adam 
novissimus, etsi Sermo prima- 
rius. 



220 TERTULLXANUS, A. D. 200. 



nature of a Providence implies His correcting what 
is evil in the world. He says, " We have learnt our 
" notions of God from the prophets and from Christy 
" not from philosophers, nor from Epicurus : we, 
" who believe that God ever lived upon earth, and 
" took upon him the humility of the human form, 
" for sake of the salvation of man, are far removed 
" from the opinions of those (the Epicureans) who 
" think that God cares for nothing. Hence the he- 
" retics have drawn the following conclusion : If 
" God is angry, and is jealous, and is excited and 
" provoked, therefore he is subject to corruption ; 
" and therefore he is mortal. But it is well to be- 
" lieve, as the Christians do, that God even died, 
" and yet that he lives for ever and ever k ." The 
Marcionites thought that they proved God to be 
mortal, which is of course absurd : and yet, as Ter- 
tullian says, there is no absurdity in believing with 
the Christians, that God submitted to death, when 
he took upon him our flesh. 

119. Tertull adv. Marc. 1. II. c. 27. p. 395. 
The following passage is given at length, as shew- 
ing not only the doctrine of Tertullian concerning 
Christ's divinity and his union with the Father, but 
as proving also, that Marcion himself fully believed 
that Christ, who appeared upon earth, was really 
God. Tertullian indeed could not put the divinity 

k Deum nos a prophetis et a venit ad hsereticos quoque defi- 

Christo, non a philosopbis, nec nitio ejusmodi : Si Deus irasci- 

ab Epicuro erudimur. Qui ere- tur, et semulatur, et extollitur, 

dimus Deum etiam in terris et exacerbatur, ergo et corrum- 

egisse, et humani habitus hu- petur, ergo et morietur. Bene 

militatem suscepisse ex causa autem quod Christianorum est, 

humanee salutis, longe sumus a etiam mortuum Deum credere, 

sententia eorum qui nolunt et tamen viventem in sevo sevo- 

Deum curare quidquam. Inde rum. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



221 



of Christ higher than Marcion did, who, while he 
believed in the existence of two Gods, believed that 
Christ was the better and greater of these, who had 
revealed himself in a human form. It appears, as in 
the last article, that Marcion had thought to prove 
the inferiority of the God of the Old Testament by 
the fact of his being represented as subject to anger, 
jealousy, &c. of his having talked to men, and per- 
formed other acts which imply humanity. Tertul- 
lian observes, " that God could not have entered 
" into conversations with men, unless he had as- 
" sumed human feelings and affections, by which he 
" could temper the greatness of his majesty, that 
66 would have been intolerable to human weakness, 
" with a humility which might be unworthy of him, 
" but necessary for man, and so far therefore worthy 
" of God, because nothing is so worthy of God as 
" the salvation of man. I should treat of this at 
" greater length, if I was dealing with heathens, al- 
" though the dispute is not very different when held 
e£ with heretics. Inasmuch as you yourselves already 
" believe that God has sojourned in the form, and 
" the other circumstances, of human nature, you 
" will not require to be persuaded more at length, 
" that God has conformed himself to humanity : but 
" you are refuted by your own belief. For if God, 
" and indeed the higher God l , lowered the emi- 
" nence of his majesty by such humility, that he 
" submitted to death, even the death of the cross, 
" why cannot you think that some degradations were 
" compatible also with our God m , which were even 

1 Marcion acknowledged of good. 
Christ to be the higher God. m i. e. the Creator of the 
inasmuch as he was the author world, the God of the Old Tes- 



TERTULLI AN US, A. D. 200. 



66 more tolerable than Jewish reproaches and crosses 
" and sepulchres ? Are these the degradations, which 
" are to prove that Christ, who was subject to hu- 
" man passions, did not belong to that God, whom 
" you reproach with having human feelings ? For 
" we hold, that Christ always acted in the name of 
" God the Father ; that he conversed with him from 
" the beginning ; that it was he who talked with 
" the patriarchs and prophets, the Son of the Crea- 
" tor, His Word, whom He made His Son by pro- 
" ducing out of Himself, and thence placed him 
" over the whole of His dispensation and will, mak- 
" ing him a little lower than the angels, as David 
"writes; (Psalm viii. 5.) by which lowering he 
" was also ordained by the Father to perform those 
" things which you object to as human, that he 
<e might learn even from the beginning what was 
" that human nature, which in the end he was to 
" be. It is he who came down : it is he who asks : 
" it is he who inquires : it is he who swears. But 
" that the Father is seen by no man, even the com- 
" in on Gospel" will testify, when Christ says, No 
" man knoweth the Father, save the Son : (Matt. 
" xi. 27.) for he himself in the Old Testament had 
" declared, JVo man shall see God and live 0 : but 
" he shews that the Father is invisible, in whose 
" authority and name he himself, who was seen, the 
" Son of God, was God. Therefore whatever you 

lament, whom Marcion ac- 0 This is taken from Exodus 

knowledged to be a God, but xxxiii. 20. No man shall see me 

accused him of being the au- and live; which words were 

thor of evil. spoken by Jehovah to Moses ; 

a That is, not Marcion's Gos- but Tertullian says, that they 

pel, but those which are com- were spoken by Christ, 
monly received by all Christians. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 223 



" require as worthy of God, will be found in the Fa- 
" ther who is invisible, and not to be talked with, 
" and free from passions, and (if I may use the ex- 
" pression) the God imagined by philosophers. But 
" whatever you object to, as unworthy of God p, will 
" be found in the Son, who was seen and heard, 
" and conversed with, the judge and minister of his 
" Father, uniting in himself man and God : in his 
" mighty acts, God : in his degradations, man : so 
" that as much as he takes from God, he confers 
" upon man : in short, all that you consider as dis- 
" graceful to my God ^ is the pledge of human sal- 
" vation. God conversed with man, that man might 
" be taught to act divinely. God placed himself on 
" an equality with man, that man might put himself 
" upon an equality with God. God was found in a 
" degraded state, that man might be in the most 
" exalted state. If you disdain such a God as this, 
" I doubt whether you really believe that God was 
" crucified r ." Origen also says that " the Jews cru- 

p Namely, his lowering him- liis et patibulis et sepulchris ? 

self to appear on earth. An hae sunt pusillitates quae jam 

q The God of the Old Tes- praejudicare debebunt Christum, 

tament, whom I and all Chris- humanis passionibus objectum, 

tians acknowledge. ejus Dei esse cui humanitates 

r Quatenus et ipsi Deum in exprobrantur a vobis ? Nam et 

figura et in reliquo ordine hu- profitemur Christum semper e- 

manae conditionis diversatum gisse in Dei patris nomine: 

jam credidistis, non exigetis uti- ipsum ab initio conversatum : 

que diutius persuaderi Deum ipsum congressum cum patri- 

conformasse semetipsum huma- archis et prophetis, filium Crea- 

nitati, sed de vestra fide revin- toris, Sermonem ejus, quem ex 

cimini. Si enim Deus, et qui- semetipso proferendo Filium 

dem sublimior, tanta humilitate fecit, et exinde omni disposi- 

fastigium majestatis suae stra- tioni suae voluntatique praefe- 

vit, ut etiam morti subjiceret, cit : diminuens ilium modico 

et morti crucis, cur non putetis citra Angelos, sicut apud David 

nostro quoque Deo aliquas pu- scriptum est; qua diminutione 

sillitates congruisse, tolerabi- in haec quoque dispositus est a 

liores tamen Judaicis contume- Patre, quae ut humana repre- 



224 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



" cified God." N°. 221, see also N°. 357. with which 
expressions we may compare that of St. Paul, that 
the princes of this world crucified the Lord of 
Glonj, 1 Cor. ii. 8. 

120. Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. III. c. 6. p. 400. 

It seems, that Marcion, in order to prove his doc- 
trine of two Gods, had argued, that the Jews re- 
jected Jesus, because they considered him as a 
preacher of a strange God different from their own. 
Tertullian denies this, and says, " They did not hate 
" and persecute Christ, as belonging to another God, 
" but as being merely a man, whom they thought 
" an impostor in his miracles, and a rival in his doc- 
" trines s ." It is plain therefore that Tertullian did 
not consider Jesus as a mere man: but he looked 
upon this notion as the fundamental error of the 
Jews, and the cause of their committing such an 
enormous crime. 



henditis, ediscens jam inde a 
primordio, jam inde hominem, 
quod erat futurus in fine. Ille 
est qui descendit : ille qui in- 
terrogat : ille qui postulat : ille 
qui jurat. Ceterum Patrem ne- 
mini visum, etiam commune 
testabitur evangelium, dicente 
Christo, Nemo cognovit Patrem 
nisi Filius. Ipse enim et veteri 
Testamento pronuntiarat, Deum 
nemo videbit et vivet : Patrem 
invisibilem determinans, cu- 
jus auctoritate et nomine ipse 
erat Deus qui videbatur Dei 

Filius. Igitur quaecumque 

exigitis Deo digna, habebuntur 
in Patre invisibili incongressi- 
bilique et placido, et ut ita 
dixerim philosophorum Deo. 
Quaecumque autem ut indigna 
reprehenditis, deputabuntur in 
Filio, et viso. et audito, et con- 



gresso, arbitro Patris et mini- 
stro, miscente in semetipso ho- 
minem et Deum: in virtutibus 
Deum; in pusillitatibus homi- 
nem ; ut tantum homini con- 
ferat, quantum Deo detrahit : 
totum denique Dei mei penes 
vos dedecus sacramentum e&t 
humanse salutis. Conversaba- 
tur Deus, ut homo divine agere 
doceretur. Ex aequo agebat 
Deus cum homine, ut homo 
ex aequo agere cum Deo posset. 
Deus pusillus inventus est, ut 
homo maximus fieret. Qui ta- 
lem Deum dedignaris, nescio an 
ex fide credas Deum crucifixum. 

s Et adeo non qua alterius 
Dei Christum adversati persecu- 
tique sunt ; sed qua solummodo 
hominem, quern planum in sig- 
nis et aemulum in doctrinis ex« 
istimabant. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 225 

121. Tertidl. adv. Marc. 1. III. c. 8. p. 401. 

Among other absurdities, Marcion considered the 
body of Jesus to be a phantom. Tertullian ob- 
serves that, if this were so, Christ was guilty of a 
deception, because he certainly meant it to be con- 
ceived, that he had a real body : and thus, he con- 
tinues ironically, Marcion would refute himself, and 
make Christ resemble the God of the Old Testa- 
ment, who, according to his own notion, was full of 
deceit. In the same strain of irony he observes, 
" It seems therefore, that Marcion's Christ, lest he 
" should be a deceiver, and should thus chance to 
" be supposed to belong to the Creator, was not 
" what he seemed to be, and told a lie as to what 
" he was, saying that he was flesh, when he was 
" not flesh ; man, when he was not man ; and conse- 
" quently that he was God, when he was not God. 
" For why might he not also have borne a false 
" appearance of God? Shall I believe him concerning 
e£ his interior substance, when he deceived concern- 
" ing his exterior 1 ? " It is evident from this irony, 
that Tertullian conceived the divinity of Christ to 
be a point which was fully believed by Marcion : 
and in order to refute Marcion's reasoning, he shews, 
that it would lead to the absurd conclusion, that 
Christ was not God, at least that his divinity might 
be questionable. 

122. Tertidl adv. Marc. 1. III. c. 16. p. 406. 

Tertullian observes, (and in this he is followed by 



1 Et ideo Christus ejus ne 
mentiretur, ne falleret, et hoc 
modo Creatoris forsitan depu- 
taretur, non erat quod videba- 
tur, et quod erat mentiebatur ; 
caro, nec caro ; homo, nec ho- 



mo ; proinde Deus Christus, 
nec Deus. Cur enim non etiam 
Dei phantasma portaverit ? An 
credam ei de interiore substan- 
tia, qui sit de exteriore frustra- 
tus ? 



226 TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 

many commentators,) that the application of the 
name Jesus to Christ was prefigured in the Old 
Testament, when the son of Nun had his name 
changed from Oshea to Joshua, which is Jesus : 
(Numb. xiii. 16.) after which he says, " Christ him- 
<e self testified that this was his own name, when he 
" spoke to Moses ; for who was it that spoke, ex- 
" cept the Spirit of the Creator, which is Christ ? 
" When therefore he gave his commandment to the 
" people, Behold I send my Angel before thee, to 
" keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the 
" land which I have prepared for thee : beware 
" of him, and obey his voice : do not disobey him : 
"for he is not concealed from thee : for my name 
" is upon him u ." Exod. xxiii. 20. The same pas- 
sage occurs nearly word for word in Tertullian's 
work against the Jews, c. 9- where he says, " He 
" who spoke to Moses was the Son of God, who was 
" always visible : for no one hath ever seen God the 
" Father and lived : and therefore it is evident that 
" the Son of God himself spoke to Moses, and said 
" to the people, Behold &c. x " 

We have only to observe, that Tertullian refers 
these words to Christ ; and yet if we look to the 



u Hoc nomen ipse Christus 
suum jam tunc esse testatus 
est, quum ad Moysen loqueba- 
tur. Quis enim loquebatur, nisi 
Spiritus Creatoris, qui est Chri- 
stus? Cum ergo mandato dice- 
ret populo, Ecce ego mitto An- 
gelum meum ante faciem tuam, 
qui te custodiat in via et intro- 
ducat in terram, quam paravi 
tibi: intende Mi et exaudi ilium: 
ne inobedieris eum : non enim 
celavit te, quoniam nomen meum 



super ilium est. Where Ter- 
tullian read non celavit te, our 
version has, he will not pardon 
your transgressions : in the LXX, 
ov [Ay vitcxnelhrjxal ae. 

x Nam qui ad Moysem loque- 
batur, ipse erat Dei Filius, qui 
et semper videbatur. Deum 
enim Patrem nemo vidit un- 
quam et vixit : et ideo constat 
ipsum Dei Filium Moysi esse 
loquutum, et dixsisse ad popu- 
lum, Ecce &c. p. 194. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D.200. 



227 



Book of Exodus, it is impossible to doubt but that 
they were spoken by the Almighty himself: and 
the passage is more remarkable, because Tertullian 
and all the Fathers considered the Angel here pro- 
mised to be Christ : so that Christ promised that he 
would send himself; which is wholly unintelligible, 
unless we believe that the Father and the Son are 
one. That Tertullian believed so, is plain from this 
passage. 

123. Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. III. c. 19. p. 408. 
The following passage requires no illustration 

from the context : " In the Gospel, which even you 
" acknowledge, God has made a revelation, calling 
" bread his body y :" and the belief which Tertullian 
had in the divinity of Christ becomes still more ap- 
parent, when we turn to his treatise against the 
Jews, where there are whole passages agreeing word 
for word with the present work : and there we read 
the same observation, with the single difference that 
Christ is substituted for God, " Christ has made a 
" revelation, calling bread his body z ." Of so little 
importance did it seem to Tertullian whether he 
named God or Christ as the author of an act, which 
we know to have been performed by Christ. 

124. Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 9. p. 419. 

Tertullian makes a singular remark upon the mi- 
raculous cure of the leper mentioned Matt. viii. 3. 
Jesus cured him by a touch : and by the law of 
Moses he would have been considered defiled for 
having touched an unclean person : but Tertullian's 
remark is a proof of his belief in Christ's divinity. 

y Sic enim Deus in evangelic- z Christus revelavit, panem 
quoque vestro revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans, c. io. 
corpus suum appellans. p. 196. 

Q 2 



228 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



" He touched the leper, by whom although a man 
" might have been defiled, yet God could not be de- 
" filed, being undefilable : so that no command need 
" be given to him that he ought to obey the law, 
" and not touch an unclean person, since the touch 
" of an unclean thing could not defile him a ." 

There is a similar passage in c. 20. of this book, 
where, speaking of the woman who had an issue of 
blood, (Matt. ix. 20.) he says, " She touched him, 
" not as a holy man, nor as a prophet, whom she 
" would have known to be defilable from his human 
" substance : but she touched him as being God 
" himself, who, as she concluded, could not be pol- 

" luted by any uncleanness. Christ approving of 

" this faith of the woman, who believed in the 
" Creator only, answered, that he was the God of 
" that faith, of which he approved b ." 

125. Tertull adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 10. p. 421. 

When Jesus had said to the paralytic man, (Luke 
v. 20.) Thy sins are forgiven thee, and the Jews 
observed, Who can forgive sins but God alone ? 
Jesus did not reply by asserting plainly that he was 
God, but he told them, The Son of man hath power 
on earth to forgive sins, leaving them to draw the 
two inferences, that he was the Son of man, and 
that the Son of man was God. Tertullian remarks, 

a Tetigit leprosum, a quo etsi minem sanctum, nec ut pro- 
homo inquinari potuisset, Deus phetam, quem contaminabilem 
utique non inquinaretur, incon- pro humana substantia sciret : 
taminabilis scilicet. Ita non sed ut ipsum Deum, quem nul- 
preescribetur illi quod debiierit la spurcitia pollui posse prse- 

legem observare, et non con- sumpserat. -Hanc fidem pro- 

tingere immundum, quem con- bans Christus ejus foeminae, quee 

tactus immundi non erat inqui- solum credebat Creatorem, ejus 

naturus. fidei se Deum respondit, quam 

b Sic eum tetigit, non ut ho- probavit. p, 434. 



TERTULLI ANUS, A. D. 200. 229 

that Jesus answered in this way, because he knew 
that Daniel, one of their own prophets, had men- 
tioned the Son of man : (Dan. vii. 13.) his answer 
therefore was equivalent to this. You say that God 
only can forgive sins ; and you say rightly : but I 
tell you, that the Son of man, whom Daniel men- 
tions, can forgive sins : for, as you yourselves well 
know, the Son of man, whom Daniel saw, was God. 

Tert ullian's words are these : " JesLis was seen 
" by the king of Babylon in the furnace with his 
" martyrs, being the fourth person, like the Son of 
" man c : the same was revealed to Daniel himself 
" expressly as the Son of man, coming as a judge 
" with the clouds of heaven, as the scripture proves. 
" I have said that this might suffice as to the title 
" Son of man being used by the prophets : but the 
" scripture makes still more in my favour by the 
" explanation of the Lord himself. For when the 
" Jews, who only looked upon the human part of 
" him, and were not yet certain that he was God, 
" as being Son of God, reasonably objected, that a 
" man could not forgive sins, but God only, why did 
" he not answer them according to what they con- 
" ceived of a man, that he had power to forgive 
" sins, whereas by calling himself the Son of man, 
" he called himself man, except that, by this very 
" appellation of the Son of man, he wished to con- 
" vince them out of the Book of Daniel, that he 
" might shew them both God and man with power 
" to forgive sins d ?" 

c Dan. iii. 25. All the He- have considered the two ex- 
brew copies read Son of God. pressions Son of man and Son 
The Septuagint read o/x-o/^a of God as equivalent. 
ayyiXov ®eov. Theodotion, opaia. d Hie ( Jesus) erat visus Ba- 
vla ®eov. Tertullian seems to bylonio regi in fornace cum 

Q 3 



230 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



126. Tertull adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 12. p. 424. 
Speaking of the Sabbath, he observes, that the 

Jews mistook the fourth commandment, which only 
restrained them from performing any common work 
of their own on that day, " For the work of God 
" may be done even by man for the salvation of a 
" soul : yet what the man Christ was about to do, 
" was done by God, because he was also God e ." 
After which he says, " He was called the Lord of 
" the Sabbath, because he observed the Sabbath as 
" a thing belonging to himself. But if he had abro- 
" gated it, he would have had a right, inasmuch as 
" he was the Lord who appointed it f ." If it was 
Christ who instituted the Sabbath, it seems impos- 
sible to deny his union with the Father. 

127. Tertull adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 13. p. 425. 

Having shewn how Christ made his actions ac- 
cord in many instances with facts mentioned in the 
Old Testament, he quotes Psalm Ixxxvii. 4, 5. as a 
prediction of the multitudes who came from the sea- 



martyribus suis quartus, tan- 
quam Alius hominis : idem ipsi 
Datiieli revelatus directo filius 
hominis, veniens cum eceli nu- 
bibus judex, sieut et scriptura 
demonstrat. Hoc dixi sumcere 
potuisse de nominatione pro- 
phetica circa filium hominis. 
Sed plus mihi scriptura confert, 
ipsius scilicet Domini interpre- 
tatione. Nam cum Judsei so- 
lummodo hominem ejus intuen- 
tes, necdum et Deum certi, qua 
Dei quoque Filium, merito re- 
tractarent non posse hominem 
delicta dimittere sed Deum so- 
lum, cur non secundum inten- 
tionem eorum de homine eis 
respondebat, Habere eum po- 



testatem dimittendi delicta, 
quando et filium hominis no- 
mi nans hominem nominaret, 
nisi quia ideo ipse voluit eos 
appellatione filii hominis ex in- 
strument© Danielis repercutere, 
ut ostenderet Deum et homi- 
nem qui delicta dimitteret. 

e Quia opus Dei etiam per 
hominem fieri potest in sal li- 
tem animse ; a Deo tamen, quod 
facturus fuerat et Christus ho- 
mo, quia et Deus. 

f Dominus Sabbati dictus, 
quia Sabbatum, ut rem suam, 
tuebatur. Quod etiam si de- 
struxisset, merito, qua Dominus 
magis ille qui instituit. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 231 



coast of Tyre and Sidon to hear him. (Luke vi. 17.) 
Tertullian's version of this passage differs consider- 
ably from our own ; and commentators are also di- 
vided, whether the prophecy relates to Christ or to 
the multitudes of believers : but Tertullian's com- 
ment upon the passage is not affected by this dis- 
crepancy, nor his testimony to the divinity of Christ. 
" They come together from Tyre, and a multitude 
" from the regions even beyond the sea : this was 
" the meaning of the Psalm, Behold Philistine and 
66 Tyre and the people of ^Ethiopia, they were 
" there. Sion the mother shall say, A man and a 
" man was made in her ; since God was born as a 
" man, and established her by the will of his Fa- 
" ther : that you may know that the Gentiles then 
" came together to him, because God was born as a 
" man, who was to build up a church by the will of 
66 his Father, even out of the Philistines s" 

128. TertulL adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 25. p. 440. 

We must remember that Marcion considered the 
God who was revealed in Christ to be different from 
the God who created the world, and that they were 
opposed to each other. Tertullian says, that the 



s Conveniunt a Tyro et ex 
aliis regionibus multitude) etiam 
transmarina. Hoc spectabat 
Psalmus, Et ecce Allophyli et 
Tyrus, et populus Mthiopum, 
isti fuerunt illic. Mater Sion 
dicet, homo et homo f actus est 
in ilia, (quoniam Deus homo 
natus est,) et cedificavit earn vo~ 
luntate Patris : ut scias ad eum 
tunc Gentiles convenisse, quia 
Deus homo erat natus, sedifica- 
turus ecclesiam ex voluntate 
Patris, ex Allophylis quoque. In 
another place, Adv. Prax. c. 27. 



p. 516. he reads this verse of the 
Psalm, Deus homo natus est in 
ilia. Origen agrees with the 
first of these two readings, y.y- 

ryp Xiav ipu, avOpavoq Kai av6paTto$ 

eyev-fori ev airy, which is the read- 
ing of the Septuagint. Athana- 
sius has the same with the ex- 
ception of iyewrjd'/] for iyev^Svj. de 
Incarn. 22. vol.1, p. 889. et ad 
Marcel. 6. p. 984. The He- 
brew reads, Of Sion it shall be 
said, A man and a man was bora 
in her. 

Q 4 



232 



TERT ULLI ANUS, A D. 200. 



notion might be refuted by that text, All things are 
delivered to me of my Father; (Luke x. 22.) at 
least it would follow from this text, that Christ and 
the Creator were connected, because all things must 
belong to him who created them ; and no other per- 
son but the Creator could have given them to Christ. 
Tertullian's comment upon the text is this, " You 
" may believe it, if Christ belongs to the Creator, 
" whose all things are : because the Creator delivered 
" to His Son, who was not inferior to Himself, all 
" things which He created by him, that is, by His 
"Word 1 "." This passage refutes even the Arians ; 
much more the Socinians and Unitarians. 

129. Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 40. p. 457. 

Fie argues, that the fact of Christ observing the 
Jewish feasts, which were instituted by the God of 
the Old Testament, proves that there could be no 
opposition between them, and he makes this remark 
upon Christ eating the last passover. " Having pro- 
" fessed that with a desire he desired to eat the 
" passover, as belonging to himself, (for it was un- 
" becoming that God should desire any thing belong- 
" ing to another,) he took bread, and distributed it 
" to his disciples, and made it his body, by saying, 
" This is my body, i. e. the figure of my body 1 ." 
130. Tertull. adv. Marc. L V. c. 5. p. 467. 

To understand the following quotation, we need 

h Omnia sibi tradita (licit a scha ut suum (indignum enim 

Patre : credas, si Creatoris est ut quid alienum concupisceret 

Christus, cujus omnia : quia non Deus,) acceptum panem et cli- 

minori se tradidit omnia Filio stributum discipulis, corpus il- 

Creator, quae per eura condidit, lum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus 

per Sermonem suum scilicet. meum dicendo, id est, figura 

1 Professus itaque se concu- corporis mei. 
piscentia concupisse edere Pa- 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 233 



only remember those words of St. Paul, The foolish- 
ness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness 
of God is stronger than men, (1 Cor. i. 25.) " But 
" what is the foolishness of God, which is wiser than 
" men, except the cross and death of Christ ? What 
" is the weakness of God, which is stronger than 
66 men, except the birth and incarnation of God k ?" 

131. Tertidl. adv. Marc. 1. V. c. 8. p. 470. 
The preexistence of Christ, as well as his being 

born of a virgin, are maintained in the following 
passage, which is a comment upon that prophecy of 
Isaiah, There shall come forth a rod out of the 
root of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his 
root, (xi. 1.) "for he shews, that Christ was to rise 
66 in the figure of a flower from a rod which was to 
" proceed from the root of Jesse, i.e. from a virgin 
" of the family of David the son of J esse, in which 
" Christ the whole substance of the Spirit was to 
" dwell : not as if it were to come subsequently 
" upon him, who was always the Spirit of God, even 
" before his incarnation : lest you might argue from 
" this, that the prophecy belonged to that Christ, 
" who as a mere man of the family of David was to 
" receive the Spirit of his God afterwards 1 ." 

132. Tertull adv. Marc. 1. V. c. 9. p. 472. 
Tertullian's commentary upon Psalm lxxii. is very 

k Quid est autem stultum ret tota substantia Spiritus : non 

Dei sapientius hominibus, nisi quasi postea obventura illi, qui 

crux et mors Christi ? Quid in- semper Spiritus Dei merit, ante 

firmum Dei, fortius homine, nisi carnem quoque ; ne ex hoc ar- 

nativitas et caro Dei? gumenteris prophetiam ad eum 

1 Christum enim in floris fi- Christum pertinere, qui ut homo 

gura ostendit oriturum ex virga tantum ex solo censu David 

profecta de radice Jesse, id est postea consecuturus sit Dei sui 

virgine generis David filii Jesse, Spiritual, 
in quo Christo consistere habe- 



234 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



remarkable. " This Psalm may be said to be sung to 
" Solomon : and yet will not those parts, which be- 
" long to Christ only, teach us that the other parts 

" also belong not to Solomon but to Christ ? 

" He shall have dominion, he says, from sea to sea, 
" and from the river unto the ends of the earth. 
" This is given to Christ alone : but Solomon only 
" ruled over the small country of Judaea. All kings 
66 shall fall down before him : before whom will all 
" fall down, except before Christ ? and all nations 
" shall serve him : whom shall all nations serve, ex- 
" cept Christ ? Let his name be for ever : whose 
" name will be for ever, except Christ's ? his name 
" shall endure before the sun : for the Word of God, 
" i. e. Christ, is before the sun. And all nations 
" shall be blessed in him: no nation will be blessed 
" in Solomon ; but in Christ every nation. What 
" now if this Psalm prove him also to be God? And 
" they shall call Him blessed : for blessed is the 
" Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous 
66 things : blessed be His glorious name ; and all 
" the earth shall be filled with His glory m ." With 
the correctness of every part of this commentary we 



m Sed et hie Psalmus Salo- 
moni canere dicetur. Quae ta- 
men soli competunt Christo do- 
cere non poterunt etiara csetera 
non ad Salomonem sed ad Chri- 
stum pertinere? Dominabitur, 
inquit, a mari ad mare, et a flu- 
mine usque ad terminos terrce. 
Hoc soli datum est Christo : 
caeterum Salomon uni et mo- 
dicse Judsegs imperavit. Adora- 
bunt ilium omnes reges : quern 
omnes, nisi Christum ? Et ser- 
vient ei omnes nationes : cui 



omnes, nisi Christo? Sit nomen 
ejus in cevum : cujus nomen in 
seternum, nisi Christi ? Ante so- 
lem manebit nomen ejus : ante 
solem enim Sermo Dei, id est 
Christus. Et benedicentur in 
illo universce gentes : in Salo- 
mone nulla natio benedicetur; 
in Christo vero omnis. Quid 
nunc si et Deum eum Psalmus 
iste demonstrat? Et beatum eum 
dicent: Quoniam benedictus Do- 
minus Deus Israelis, qui facit 
mirabilia solus, &c. &c. 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



235 



are not concerned : but it is undeniable that Tertul- 
lian believed Christ to be the Lord God of Israel, 
or he would not have applied passages to him, which 
would so easily have been understood of God the 
Father. 

133. Tertull. adv. Praoceam, c. 2. p. 501. 
This treatise was written against Praxeas, who fol- 
lowed what has been called the Patripassian heresy, 
i. e. he believed and taught that it was the Father 
who was born and crucified ; so that the Father and 
Son were one, not only in substance, but in person. 
In refuting this doctrine, Tertullian would naturally 
point out, that the orthodox church fully believed in 
the unity of God, but he would also shew how two 
persons were understood to exist in one substance. 
Accordingly he says in the second chapter ; " We 
" believe that there is only one God, but under this 
" dispensation n : namely, that there is also a Son 
" of this one God, His Word, who proceeded from 
" Him, by ivliom all things ivere made, and without 
" whom nothing was made: that he was sent by his 
" Father into a Virgin, and born of her, man and 
" God, Son of man and Son of God, and named 
" Jesus Christ : that he suffered ; that he died and 
" was buried according to the scriptures ; that he 
" was raised again by the Father, and taken up into 
" heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Fa- 
" ther ; who will come to judge quick and dead : 
" who sent from thence, according to his promise, 
" the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, from the Father, 
" who sanctifieth the faith of those who believe in 
" the Father and Son and Holy Ghost °." 

n Dispensatio sive oeconomia. 0 Unicum quidem Deum cre- 
See note p. p. 70. dimus : sub hac tamen dispen- 



236 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



In this passage we evidently read a prescribed 
form of belief or creed, and Tertullian tells us that 
it had been handed down from the beginning of the 
Gospel, even before any heresies existed. At p. 69-72- 
I have transcribed the creeds which Irenaeus ac- 
knowledged ; and the reader may compare them 
with the one just given, as well as with the follow- 
ing, which Tertullian has also preserved. " There 
" is only one rule of faith, alone unalterable and not 
" to be reformed, i. e. of believing in God Almighty, 
" Creator of the world; and in His Son Jesus Christ, 
" who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under 
" Pontius Pilate ; who rose again from the dead on 
" the third day, was taken up into heaven, and sit- 
" teth at the right hand of God, who will come to 
" judge the quick and dead p." 

" The rule of faith is, that there is only one God, 
€< and no other except the Creator of the world, who 
" formed all things out of nothing by His Word, 
" who was produced before all things : that this 
« Word was called His Son, who was seen at va- 



satione, quam ceconomiani dici- 
mus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius, 
Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso pro- 
cesserit, per quem omnia facta 
sunt, et sine quo factum est ni- 
hil. Hunc missum a Patre in 
Virginem, et ex ea natum liomi- 
nem et Deum, Filium hominis 
et Filium Dei, et cognominatum 
Jesum Christum. Hunc pas- 
sum, hunc mortuum et sepul- 
tum secundum scripturas, et re- 
suscitatum a Patre, et in ccelos 
resumptum, sedere ad dexteram 
Patris, venturum judicare vivos 
et mortuos ; qui exinde miserit, 
secundum promissionem suam, 



a Patre Spiritum Sanctum Pa- 
racletum, sanctificatorem fidei 
eorum qui credunt in Patrem et 
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. 

p Regula quidem fidei una 
omnino est, sola immobilis et 
irreformabilis credendi scilicet 
in unicum Deum omnipoten- 
tem, mundi conditorem, et Fi- 
lium ejus Jesum Christum, na- 
tum ex Virgine Maria, cruci- 
fixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia 
die resuscitatum a mortuis, re- 
ceptum in ccelis, sedentem nunc 
ad dexteram Patris, venturum 
judicare vivos et mortuos. De 
Virg. Veland. c. i. p. 173. 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 237 

" rious times in the name of God by the patriarchs, 
" was always heard in the prophets, and lastly by 
" the Spirit and power of God the Father came 
<e into the Virgin Mary, and was made flesh in her 
" womb, and was born in her, and appeared, Jesus 
" Christ — —that he was crucified, rose again on the 
" third day, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth 
" at the right hand of the Father %" 

134. Tertutt. adv. Prax. c. 17. p. 510. 
Nothing can shew more plainly the sense in 
which Tertullian used the term God, when applied 
to Christ, than the following passage. " The titles 
" of the Father, God Almighty, Most High, Lord of 
" Hosts r , King of Israel, I Am, as far as the Scrip- 
" tures teach us, we say that those titles belong also 
" to the Son, and that the Son came under those 
" titles, and always acted according to them, and 
" thus manifested them in himself to men. All 
" things that the Father hath 9 he says, are mine : 
6i (John xvi. 15.) why not also his titles s ? When 

Regula est fidei unum Son is the Lord of Hosts, II. p. 

omnino Deum esse, nec alium 24. quoted in N°. 170. See also 

praeter mundi conditorem ; qui Justin Martyr as quoted at N°. 

universa de nihilo produxerit, 26. and Dionysius of Alexandria 

per Verbum suum prinio omni- quoted at p. 123. note h . 

um clemissum : id Verbum Fi- s Athanasius argues in the 

lium ejus appellatura, in nomine same manner from this text, 

Dei varie visum a patriarchis, in that the Son is alhot;, odwioc, ku) 

prophetis semper auditum, post- aBdvaroq. In Ma'tt. xi. 27. vol. I. 

remo delatum ex Spiritu Pa- p. 106; and in his commentary 

tris Dei et virtute in Virginem upon Psalm lxxxviii. 25. he has 

Mariam, carnem factum in utero a still stronger passage to the 

ejus, et ex ea natum egisse Je- same purpose, beginning with 

sum Christum fixum cruci, -roiq ovopcca-iv, ol? aaktcrrcx, m -piitovcri 

tertia die resurrexisse, in coelos tS narfi, ku) avroq 6 vloq hotja^ercu, 

. ereptum sedisse ad dexteram and ending with the quotation 

Patris. De Prescript. Haeret. of John xvii. 10. vol. I, p. 1 159- 

c. 13. p. 206, 7. 60. 
r Hippolytus says, that the 



238 



TERTULLIANUS, A.D. 200. 



" therefore you read Almighty God, and Most High, 
" and God of Hosts, and King of Israel, and I Am, 
" consider whether the Son is not also pointed out 
" by those titles ; God Almighty by his own right, 
" inasmuch as he is the Word of God Almighty ; 
" and inasmuch as he has received the power of all 
" things: the Most High, inasmuch as he is exalted 
" by the right hand of God, as Peter preaches in 
" the Acts, (ii. 33.) the Lord of Hosts, because all 
" things are subjected to him by the Father ; (Matt. 
" xi. 27.) King of Israel, because the lot of that 
" nation fell properly to him : also / Am, because 
e< many are called sons and are not l . If they should 
" also say, that the name of Christ belongs to the 
" Father, they shall be attended to in the proper 
" place. In the mean time let me here give an 
" answer to that which they bring forward from the 
" Revelation of John, (i. 8.) /, the Lord, which is, 
" and which was, and which is to come, the Al- 
" mighty : and if in any other place they think that 
" the title of God Almighty does not also apply to 
" the Son, as if he who is to come cannot be Al- 
" mighty : whereas the Son of the Almighty is as 
" much Almighty, as the Son of God is God u ." I 



* Whether we admit this in- 
terpretation of the title Qui est, 
or no, it seems impossible to 
deny, that Tertullian conceived 
Christ to be the Son of God in 
a manner different from any 
person who is merely called so. 
He considered him to be a be- 
gotten Son, from which he could 
come to no other conclusion, 
but that the begotten Son of 
God is God. Our own lan- 
guage and our own ideas can 



furnish no suitable analogy for 
the generation of the Son : but 
I deny that our ideas can con- 
ceive a begotten Son to be of a 
different nature from his Fa- 
ther. 

11 Sed et nomina Patris, Deus 
Omnipotens, Altissimus, Domi- 
nus Virtutum, Rex Israelis, Qui 
est, quatenus ita scripturae do- 
cent, hsec dicimus et in Filium 
competisse, et in his Filium ve- 
nisse, et in his semper egisse, et 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 239 



may observe that Hippolytus also considered the 
words in Rev. i. 8. to be applied to Christ ; see 
N°. 160. 

135. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 27. p. 516. 
The last quotation which I make from Tertullian 
must be a long one ; but it goes so deeply into the 
doctrine, which I am endeavouring to ascertain, 
that there is a difficulty in abridging it ; neither is 
any introduction necessary to explain its meaning. 
" Being pressed on all sides by the distinction of the 
" Father and the Son, which distinction we care- 
" fully observe, though the union remains ; like that 
" of the sun and the ray, of the fountain and the 
" river, though we use the individual numbers of 2 
" and 3 ; nevertheless they try to interpret that 
" distinction according to their own opinion ; that 
" though making only one person they may keep a 
" distinction of both, the Father and the Son, by 
" saying that the Son is flesh, i. e. man, i. e. Jesus ; 
" but that the Father is spirit, i. e. God, i. e. Christ: 
" and thus they, who contend that the Father and 



sic ea in se hominibus mani- 
festasse. Omnia, inquit, Patris 
me a sunt. Cur non et nomina ? 
Cum ergo legis Deum omnipo- 
tentem, et Altissimum, et Deum 
Virtutum, et Regem Israelis, et 
Qui est, vide ne per hsec Filius 
etiam demonstretur, suo jure 
Deus omnipotens, qua Sermo 
Dei omnipotentis, quaque om- 
nium accepit potestatem : Al- 
tissimus, qua dextera Dei exalta- 
tus, sicut Petrus in Actis con- 
cionatur : Dominus Virtutum, 
quia omnia subjecta sunt illi a 
Patre : Rex Israelis, quia illi 
proprie excidit sors gentis istius : 



item, Qui est, quoniam multi 
filii dicuntur, et non sunt. Si 
autem volunt et Christi nomen 
Patris esse, audient suo loco. 
Interim hie mihi promotum sit 
responsum adversus id quod et 
de Apocalypsi Joannis profe- 
runt : Ego Dominus, qui est, et 
qui fuit, et venit, omnipotens: et 
sicubi alibi Dei omnipotentis 
appellationem non putant etiam 
Filio convenire, quasi qui ven- 
turus est, non sit omnipotens ; 
cum et Filius omnipotentis tarn 
omnipotens sit, quam Deus Dei 
Filius. 



240 



TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. 



" Son are one and the same x , begin to divide them 

" rather than to unite them They say, It was 

" declared by the angel, Therefore that holy thing, 
66 which shall he horn shall he called the Son of 
" God. (Luke i. 35.) It was therefore flesh that 

" was born : the Son of God therefore is flesh- . 

" But I reply, it was spoken of the Spirit of God : 
" for certainly the Virgin conceived of the Holy 
" Ghost ; and what she conceived, that she brought 
" forth : that therefore which was conceived and to 
" be brought forth, was born : i. e. the Spirit, from 
" whom also he was to have the name Emmanuel, 
" which is, when interpreted, God with us: but 
" the flesh is not God, that of it should be said, that 
" holy thing which shall he horn shall he called the 
6C Son of God : but he who was born in the flesh 
(i was God, of whom also the Psalm says, Since 
" God was horn in it a man, and established it by 
" the will of his Father, (lxxxvii. 5.) What God was 
" born in it ? The W ord, and the Spirit, which was 
" born together with the Word, by the Will of the 
" Father. Therefore it was the Word which was 
" in the flesh : so that we must inquire into this 
" point, how the Word was made flesh : whether 
" by being as it were transformed in the flesh, or 
" having put on flesh : certainly he put it on : but 
" God must be believed to be one, who cannot be 
" changed and cannot be formed, as being eternal. 
" But transformation is a destruction of that which 
<e was before: for whatever is transformed into some- 
" thing else, ceases to be that which it was, and be- 
" gins to be what it was not. But God neither ceases 



x i. e. not only in substance, but in person. 



TERTULLI ANUS, A. D. 200. 



241 



<c to be, nor can he be any thing else. But the Word 
" was God : and the Word of God remains for ever, 
" I mean, by continuing in its own form. If it is 
" incapable of being transformed, it follows, that it 
" must be understood to have been made flesh, by 
" having been in the flesh, and made manifest, and 

" seen, and handled by flesh for if the Word 

tc was made flesh by a transformation and change of 
" substance, Jesus will then be one substance out of 
" two substances, a sort of mixture made of flesh 

" and spirit Jesus will therefore neither be God; 

" (for he, who was made flesh, ceased to be the 
« Word ;) nor will he be flesh, i. e. man : for he 

" who was the Word is not properly flesh. But 

" we find him described expressly as God and man, 
" as in this same Psalm, Since God was born in it, 
" a man &c. clearly in every way the Son of God, and 
44 Son of man, since he was God and man, without 
" doubt differing in his proper nature according to 
" each substance : because the Word was nothing 
" else but God, nor was the flesh any thing else but 
" man. So also the apostle teaches concerning both 
" his substances, Who was made, he says, of the 
" seed of David : (Rom. i. 3.) this means man, and 
" Son of man, who was declared to he the Son of 
u God according to the Spirit : this means God, 
" and the Word, the Son of God. We see the two- 
" fold condition, not confounded, but united in one 
" person, Jesus, God and man y." 

y Undique enim obducti di- ter earn ad suam nihilominus 

stinctione Patris et Filii, quam sententiam interpretari conan- 

manente conjunctione disponi- tur, ut seque in una persona 

mus, ut solis et radii, et fontis utrumque distinguant, Patrem 

et fluvii, per individuum tamen et Filium, dicentes Filium car- 

numerum duorum et triuni, ali- nern esse, id est, horainem, id 

11 



MINUCIUS FELIX, A. D. 210. 



Minucius Felix. A. D. 210. 
This writer has left so little concerning the doc- 
trinal or controversial points of Christianity, that I 
should have omitted him altogether, if he had not 



est Jesum : Patrem autem Spi- 
ritum, id est Deum, id est Chri- 
stum. Et qui unum eurtdem- 
que contendunt Patrem et Fi- 
lium, jam incipiunt dividere 

illos potius quam unare. 

Ecce, inquiunt, ab angelo pree- 
dicatum est, Propterea quod 
nascetur sanctum vocabitur Filius 
Dei. Caro itaque nata est, caro 
utique erit Filius Dei. Imrao 
de Spiritu Dei dictum est. Certe 
enim de Spiritu Sancto Virgo 
concepit : et quod concepit, id 
peperit : id ergo nasci habebat, 
quod erat conceptum et pari- 
endum ; id est, Spiritus, cujus 
et vocabitur nomen Emmanuel, 
quod est interpretatum, No- 
biscum Deus. Caro autem Deus 
non est, ut de ilia dictum sit, 
Quod nascetur &c. sed ille qui 
in ea natus est, Deus : de quo 
et Psalmus, Quoniam Deus ho- 
mo natus est in ilia, et cedificavit 
earn voluntate Patris. QuisDeus 
in ea natus ? Sermo, et Spiri- 
tus, qui cum Sermone o*e Patris 
voluntate natus est. Igitur Ser- 
mo in came, dum et de hoc 
quserendum, quomodo Sermo 
caro sit factus : utrumne quasi 
transfiguratus in carne, an in- 
dutus carnem ? Immo indutus. 
Cseterum Deum immutabilem 
et informabilem credi necesse 
est, ut seternum. Transfiguratio 
autem interemptio est pristini. 
Omne enim quodcumque trans- 
figuratur in aliud desinit esse 
quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod 
non erat. Deus autem neque 



desinit esse, neque aliud potest 
esse. Sermo autem Deus : et 
Sermo Domini manet in sevum, 
preseverando scilicet in sua for- 
ma. Quern si non capit trans- 
figurari, consequens est, ut sic 
caro factus intelligatur dum fit 
in carne, et manifestatur, et vi- 
detur, et contrectatur per car- 
nem. Si enim Sermo ex 

transfiguratione et demutatione 
substantia? caro factus est, una 
jam erit substantia Jesus ex 
duabus, ex carne et spiritu 
mixtura qusedam— — Neque er- 
go Deus erit Jesus : Sermo 
enim desiit esse, qui caro factus 
est ; neque caro, id est, homo : 
caro enim non proprie est, qui 

Sermo fuit Sedenim inve- 

nimus ilium directo et Deum 
et hominem expositum, ipso 
hoc Psalmo suggerente, Quo- 
niam Deus &c. certe usquequa- 
que Filium Dei et filium homi- 
nis, cum Deum et hominem, 
sine dubio secundum utramque 
substantiam in sua proprietate 
distantem : quia neque Sermo 
aliud quam Deus, neque caro 
aliud quam homo. Sic et apo- 
stolus de utraque ejus substantia 
docet, Qui factus est, inquit, ex 
semine David: hie erit homo 
et filius hominis: qui definitus 
est Filius Dei secundum Spiri- 
tum : hie erit Deus et Sermo 
Dei Filius. Videmus duplicem 
statum, non confusum, sed con- 
junctum in una persona, Deum 
et hominem Jesum. 



MINUCIUS FELIX, A.D. 210. 243 



furnished one very material testimony to the fact of 
Christ being worshipped. Lardner supposes that he 
flourished about the year 210. We know scarcely 
any thing of his life, except that he was converted 
to Christianity ; and his book is a powerful exposi- 
tion of the absurdities of paganism. It is entitled 
Octavius, from its containing a Dialogue, which is 
supposed to take place between Csecilius Natalis, a 
heathen, and Octavius Januarius, a Christian. Mi- 
nucius Felix was present as the judge ; and it ended 
in Csecilius being convinced. 

136. Minucii Felicis Octavius, p. 280-81. 
The passage alluded to is at p. 280-81. where 
Octavius is answering the old objection of the Chris- 
tians worshipping a man, who was crucified as a 
malefactor. He says, " For as to your charging our 
" religion with a man who was a culprit, and with 
" his cross, you wander very far from the truth, 
" when you think either that a culprit would have 
" deserved that we should believe him to be a God, 
" or that a man of this earth could be believed to 
" be a God. That man is indeed to be pitied, 
" whose whole hope rests upon a mortal man : for 
" his whole assistance is at an end when the man is 
" extinct 7 ." 

It is plain from this passage that, in the opinion 

7 - Nam quod religioni nostra? lium cum extincto homine fini- 

hominem noxium et crucem tur. Lactantius alludes to the 

ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia same accusation— quae velut op- 

veritatis erratis ; qui putatis probrium nobis objectari solet, 

Deum credi, aut meruisse no- quod et hominem, et ab homi- 

xium, aut potuisse terrenum. nibus insigni supplicio affectum 

Nse ille miserabilis, cujus in et excruciatum colamus. Instit. 

homine mortali spes omnis in- IV. 16. p. 314. 
nititur : totum enim ejus auxi- 

R 2 



5244 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



of Minucius, the person, to whom the Gentiles ob- 
jected as a crucified malefactor, was worshipped as 
a God : neither could he have been called God, like 
one of the deified heroes of paganism : for not only 
does Minucius prove most successfully that a mortal 
man never could be a God, but he expressly says in 
the above passage, that the Christians did not rest 
their hopes on a mortal, or on a person of this earth. 
But if Christ, who confessedly was earthly, inas- 
much as he was born from an earthly parent, and 
who confessedly was subject to death, inasmuch as 
he was crucified, was yet not of this earth, and not 
a mortal man, whence could he come but from 
heaven ? and what could his nature be but im- 
mortal and divine ? 

Hippolytus. A. D. 220. 
This Father is generally mentioned as, Hippoly- 
tus Portuensis, and he was certainly a bishop : but 
it has been disputed whether he was bishop of Por- 
tus (Porto) near the mouth of the Tyber, or of Por- 
tus Romanus, now called Adan, or Eden, in Arabia. 
The same uncertainty, which attends the name of 
his see, pervades his whole history : and it might be 
doubted, whether two or more bishops of the same 
name have not been confounded, and the works of 
the one attributed to the other. Jerom and Theo- 
doret mention Hippolytus as a martyr, and it has 
been supposed that he suffered either in the Decian 
persecution in 250, or in that of Maximus in 235. 
According to either of these dates, we may safely 
follow Lardner in considering him to have flourished 
about the year 220. With respect to his doctrine, 
he stands as a connecting link between Irenaeus and 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.220. 245 



Origen ; having been a disciple of the former, and 
having had Origen as one of his hearers. 
137. Hippolyti de Antichristo, c. 2. vol. 1. p. 5. 
Whatever doubts may be entertained concerning 
some of the works ascribed to Hippolytus, the au- 
thority of the book de Antichristo seems to be un 
questioned. 

The preexistence of Christ, and his union with 
that Spirit, under whose influence the prophets 
wrote, are maintained in the following passage, 
where the prophets are compared to a musical in- 
strument touched and rendered vocal by the Word 
of God. " For these Fathers, the prophets, were 
" harmonized by the prophetical Spirit, and ho- 
" noured according to their merit by the Word 
" himself, and put in tune with each other, like in- 
" struments, having the Word always in themselves 
" like a plectrum, by which they were touched, and 
" declared those things which God wished. For 
" they did not speak of their own ability, lest they 
" might deceive ; nor did they preach what they 
" themselves wished ; but in the first place they had 

" true wisdom given them by the Word a ." 

And if we doubt what Hippolytus meant in these 
places by the Word, we find in the following chap- 
ter, that he meant the Son of God ; " You wish to 
" know how the Word of God, who was himself the 
" Son of God, and long ago the Word, made revela- 
" tions to the blessed prophets- b ." 

a Ovroi yap Ttvevpari itpocpyirtKa (pyrai. ov yap e£ itilaq SwdfAeuq 

ol narepeq Kccryprio-fAevoi, kou vk icpdeyyovro, ^ nXdvco (1. Trkdvuo-w,) 

avrov rov Aoyov d%twq rert^T/uevoi, ovfie osztp avroi efiovXovro, ravra 

opydvcov S/foji/ eavroTq vjvuf/Jvoi, tyov- ixYipvnov, d'Ahd icpSroy uev hid rov 

T€$ e> tavroTq del rov Aoyov obq TtAvj- Aoyov icrotpl^ovro opOSit;, k. r. A. 
ktjjgv, Si' ov Kivovpevoi dwf\yyeXkov b Wac, «y ndXai roiq txaKaptoiq 

ravra, cwrep rjdetev o ®eoq, ol npo- npocp'fjrau; dneKaAvipev 6 rov 0eou 

K 3 



246 HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



138. Hippolyti de Antichristo, c. 4. vol. 1. p. 6. 
In the following passage we see still more plainly, 

that Hippolytus not only believed in the preexist- 
ence of Christ, but that the state, in which he was 
before his human birth, was a divine state. " The 
" Word of God, who was not fleshly, put on the 
" blessed flesh from the blessed Virgin, like a bride- 
" groom wearing a garment for himself, in the suf- 
" fering of the cross ; that by blending our mortal 
" body with his own power, and uniting the cor- 
" ruptible to the incorruptible, and the weak to the 
" strong, he might save lost man c ." 

139. Hippolyti de Antickristo, c. 6. vol. I. p. 7. 
Hippolytus referred Jacob's prophecy of the Lion 

of the tribe of Judah (Gen. xlix. 9. Rev. v. 5.) to 
Christ, and begins the sixth chapter with these 
words, "Now since the Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
" God, on account of his kingly and glorious state, 

" was spoken of before as a Lion d ." 

140. Hippolyti de Antickristo, c. 26. vol. I. p. 14. 

Hippolytus, like every other commentator ancient 
and modern, refers to Christ that magnificent de- 
scription given by Daniel of the vision of the Son 
of man ; / saw in the night visions, and, behold, 
one like the Son of man came with the clouds of 
heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and 
they brought him near before Him. And there 
was given him dominion, and glory, and a king- 



Aoyoq, avToq itdXiv o tov Seov Ttouq, 
o vaXou plv Aoyoq, Tvy*Ttv eiri^- 
Te7q. 

c 'O Aoyoq tov &eov, dcapKoq av 9 
ive^vcraTO t\v dyiav <rdpKa eK Tvjq 
dyiaq icapQevov, Sq vv{A(ptoq ludTiov 
i^vcpdvaq kavTu iv tZ crTccvpiKtp itot- 
6ei, OTtcoq avyKepdcraq to Qv/\tov 



7jfAuv crapa, T7j iavTOv Swd[A€i, kou 
[Aifjoiq tw dcpOdpTU to cpOapTov kou 
to dtrOeveq tS layppa, cra<rri tov 
duoWvpevov dv&puizov. 

d Tov [xev ovv Kvptov 'I'/jcrov Xpi- 
(ttov tov @eov did to (3cca i'aikqv 
kou evSofov aq XiovToq TrpoK€Krjpvy[/.i- 
vov— — . 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



247 



dom, that all people, nations, and languages, 
should serve him : his dominion is an everlast- 
ing dominion, which shall not pass away, and his 
kingdom that which shall not he destroyed, (vii. 
13, 14.) We might naturally infer, that the prophet 
could not have had in his contemplation a mere 
man ; and Hippolytus observes upon this passage : 
" He is describing all the power which was given by 
" the Father to the Son, who was declared to be 
" King and Judge of all things in heaven and in 
" earth and under the earth : of things in heaven, 
i( because he was the Word of the Father, begotten 
" before all things ; and of things in earth, because 
" he was born as a man amongst men, forming 
" Adam afresh of himself; and of things under the 
" earth, because he was also reckoned among the 
" dead, and preached the Gospel to the souls of the 
" saints, conquering death by death e ." 

141. Hippolyti de Antichristo, c.45. vol. I. p. 21, 22. 
We find the following remarkable expression con- 
cerning John the Baptist ; " When he heard the sa- 
" lutation of Elizabeth, he leaped in his mother's 
" womb, rejoicing because he saw God the Word 
" conceived in the Womb of the Virgin f ." 

142. Hippolyti de Antichristo, c. 61. vol. I. p. 30. 
In this place we have an explanation of the vision 

described in Revelations xii. The woman mentioned 

e Tvjv i^ovatav na<rav rvjv Se§o- rayfiovloov 8e, on kou iv vcKpoTq koct- 

[Azvqv icapd rov Tiarpoq tb via ime- eXoyicrQ'q, evayyeXt^opevoq rdq rav 

8ei|ev, 65 inovpuvi'av, kou iitiydav, aylav \pv%dq, did Oavdrov tov 6dva- 

kou Kccxayfiovlav fiaaiXevq kou Kpiryq rov vikoov. 

ndvrav ditodedeiKTCci. iicovpavlav tAtv, f Ovroq aKOvtraq rov o\<j<tcoi<tikqv 

on Aoyoq rov Uocrpoq irpo itdvrav t% 'EXio-dfier icrKiprya-ev iv KOiXta 

yeyevYiy,evo<; v\v. iniyetav §e, on av- [Ayrpoq, dyocXXofxevoq ivopav rov iv 

Opaitoq iv dvOpanoiq iyevv^Ofj, dva- KOiXla, ryjq itapBlvov avvtiX'^^vov 

nvXdacroov di eavrov rov 'Addu' kcl- ®eov Koyov. 

R 4 



248 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



in ver. 1. is said to be the Church : and after those 
words, ver. 5. She brought forth a man child, who 
was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, Hip- 
polytus observes, " The Church teaches all nations, 
" while it is always bringing forth Christ the Son of 
" God, a man child, and perfect, announced as God 
" and man : and the words, Her child was caught 
" up unto God and to His throne, mean, that he 
64 who is always brought forth by her, is a heavenly 
" King and not earthly, as David also predicted, 
" saying, The Lord said unto my Lords" & c . 
Ps. ex. 1. At the end of the chapter he quotes those 
words of Malachi, (iv. 2.) But unto you that fear 
my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise 
with healing in his wings, which are evidently 
the words of Jehovah, (see iii. 17.) but Hippolytus 
quotes them as spoken by Christ. 

Throughout the whole of this work Hippolytus 
quotes so largely from the book of Revelations, that 
no doubt can be entertained as to his opinion of the 
authenticity of the work. We are told indeed that 
he wrote a defence of it h . The only one of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, who seems to have doubted whether 
it was written by St. John, is Dionysius of Alexan- 
dria : but he received it as canonical and of great 
antiquity. The following Fathers quote it as the 
genuine work of the apostle ; Papias, Justin Martyr, 
Irenasus, Melito, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian *, 

g Tov appeva koa TeXetov Xpicnov koa ovk eitiyeioi; o Si s avrvjq dei yev- 

r.ouha ©eoE ©eov kcCi avOpcoixov Kct- vvfAevoc, naBoiq Ka\ Aa5i§ wpoccvetya- 

Tcx-yyeXXoyLevov del t'iktovgcl y 'E/c- vet, 'Aeyav, Einev o Kvpio$ k. t. X. 
KMitria Mda-Kei ndvra ra. e0w?. To h See the edition of his 

Se Xeyetv, 'HpTidyy to tckvov ccvTvjs works, vol. I. p. 280. 

%poq tov ©eov koa npoq tov Bpovov 1 Tertullian's testimony is 
ainov, 0T1 en;ovpa.vio<; eVr* fiaanXevi;, very strong, Nam etsi Apoca- 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



249 



Apollonius, Hippolytus, Origen, Metliodius. The 
instances have been given by so many writers, that 
I do not transcribe them k . 
143. Hippolyti contra Platonem, vol. I. p. 222. 
The following short passage may also be quoted ; 
" For all, both righteous and unrighteous, shall be 
" brought before God the Word 1 ." 

144. Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. I. p. 225. 
The following passage is quoted by Gelasius 

among other testimonies which he brings from 
writers who believed in the twofold nature of Christ. 
" When he came into the world, he appeared God 
" and man. It is easy to understand that he was 
" man, since he was hungry and weary, &c. But it 
" is also plain that we may see his divinity, when 
" he is praised by angels, beheld by shepherds, &c. 
" You have seen that according to the flesh he was 
" of David ; but according to the Spirit he was of 
" God : wherefore it is proved that the same person 
" was both God and man m ." 

145. Hippolyti contra Beronem et Helicem, 

vol. I. p. 225. 
This treatise was written against the opinions of 
Beron and Helix, who, as we learn from Hippoly- 



lypsim ejus Marcion respuit, 
ordo tamen episcoporum ad 
originem recensus in Joannem 
stabit auctorem. Adv. Marc. IV. 

5- P- 4i5- 

k The Fathers who have 
quoted this book are enume- 
rated at length by Tillemont, 
Mem. torn I. p. 1086. &c. 

1 Yldvret; yap biKaiol re koi abi- 
koi ivuiuov rov ®eov Aoyov ayfirpov- 
tai. 

m Hie procedens in mundum 



Deus et homo apparuit : et ho- 
minem quidem eum facile est 
intelligere, cum esurit, et fati- 
gatur, &c. Divinitatem vero 
ejus videre rursus clarum est, 
quando laudatur ab angelis, et 
hoc a pastoribus inspicitur &c. 
Vidisti quod secundum carnem 
quidem ejus ex David erat, quod 
vero secundum Spiritum, ex 
Deo : quapropter probatum est 
eundem et Deum et hominem. 



250 HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



tus himself, deserted the Valentinian notions, and 
adopted others still more erroneous. They acknow- 
ledged the two natures of Christ ; but they conceived 
them to have become entirely and absolutely one ; 
so that the flesh assisted in the divine operations of 
Christ ; and his divine nature shared the sufferings 
of the human. This heresy was in a manner re- 
vived by the Apollinarians ; though there seems to 
have been this difference between them : Beron and 
Helix believed that the flesh, or human nature of 
Christ, became itself divine; Apollinarius taught 
that Christ did not take a fleshly body at all, but 
that his body was uncreated and eternally divine. 
See page 21. Almost every page of this treatise 
might be quoted as asserting the divinity of Christ. 
He begins by saying, that the nature of God cannot 
be susceptible of any change whatsoever : and hence 
he argues, that the divine nature of Christ could not 
be altered by the assumption of the human nature. 

C. 1. p. 226. " Wherefore also the Word of God, 
" who was truly made, as we are, a man, yet without 
" sin, who acted and suffered humanly, in every 
" thing that is incident to our nature, without being 
" sinful, and endured for our sakes to be circum- * 
" scribed in natural flesh, did not undergo any 
" change, nor did that, which is the same with the 
66 Father, become in any respect at all the same with 
" the flesh on account of his divesture. But as he 
" was, when without flesh, so he continued, free 
" from all circumscription. And having performed 
" in a divine manner through the flesh those things 
" which belong to divinity, he proved himself, by 
" the things which he did in both ways, (I mean 
" divinely and humanly,) to be, and to be conceived 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 251 



" to be, really, according to true and natural exist- 
" ence, both God who is infinite, and man who is 
" circumscribed : having perfectly the perfect sub- 
" stance of each, together with its own operation, 
" i. e. its natural property : from which we know 
6i that their difference always continued according 
ee to their nature without any change. But this 
" was not, as some say, by comparison n ; lest we 
" should make the same person greater and less, ac- 
" cording as he stood in the same relation to him- 
" self, which we ought not to do : for comparisons 
" belong to things of the same nature, not to things 
" of different natures. But that which is created is 
" in no respect compared with God the Creator of 
" all things, nor finite with infinite, nor finity with 
" infinity ; since they always differ from each other 
" in every respect naturally, and not comparatively ; 
" although there be an indescribable and indissolu- 
" ble union of both in one substance, which alto- 
" gether surpasses every perception of every created 
" thing. For the divine nature, as it was before its 
" incarnation, is also after its incarnation, by nature 
" infinite, incomprehensible, impassible, incompara- 
" ble, unchangeable, having power in itself, in a 
64 word, existing substantially, the only inexhausti- 
" ble good °." No words can be stronger than these 

n These heretics said, that i<rriv dvoi\xdpvt\'V'x, kou (pva-iKriq <rap- 

the divine and human natures Koq itepiypaipvjq dya<r%o^€voq 2u 5 rn^Scq, 

of Christ did not differ really, Tpairqv oz3% vnefAeivev, pjB' i'A irav- 

for they were one and the reXaq, o rotvrov iari rS Harp), 

same ; but they differed only yevopevoq ravrov t5j a-apKi 8i« i\v 

in comparison. Kevu<riv. 5 Aaa' va-nep trap- 

° Ato kou kccQ' '/JiAccq uXrfiaq ye- Koq, itda-qq efo; neptypoupvjq ^e/xeV/jKe" 

vo[A€voq di/QpccTtoq %cop)q d^ctpriocq 6 kou Sia crapKoq Be'tKcoq hepyqarctq dnep 

tov &eov Aoyoq, ivepyqcrccq re kou BeoTq'Voq icrriv, d[/,<poTepcc deiKvvq 

ntaBciv dvOpairlvaq tcra trjq (pvaeaq colvtqv, §<' av afMpOTepcoq, (Qe'iKwq §tj 



252 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



last. For if the divine nature of Christ be the only 
inexhaustible good, the nature of the Son must be 
the same with the nature of the Father : otherwise 
we put the divinity of the Son above that of the 
Father. 

C. 2. p. 226. " The God of the universe therefore, 
" without undergoing change, was made man, ac- 
" cording to the scriptures, without sin, as he him- 
" self knows, who is alone the natural Framer of 
" what surpasses our understanding. Also by this 
" incarnation for our salvation, he produced in the 
" flesh the operation of his own divine nature, which 
" operation was not circumscribed by the flesh on 
" account of his divesture, nor did it proceed by 
" nature from the flesh, as it did from his divine 
" nature ; but in all the divine works, which he did 
" while incarnate, it was manifested through the 
" flesh. For the flesh did not change its nature, 
" and become by nature divine, when it became by 
" nature the flesh of that which was divine : but 
" what it was before, so it continued in nature and 
" operation after it was united to the divine nature : 
" (as the Saviour said, The spirit indeed is willing, 



cp'fjfM Kai avQpomtvccq) ivfjpy/jae, Kar 
avr r /]V r r qv ovrcoq oc\y}6yi Kai <pv<TiK'/]v 
vnap^iv, ®eov aizeipov oy.ov Ka\ nepi- 
ypanrbv avOpccirov o'vra re Ka) voov- 
pevov, rrjv overlay sKarepov re'Aeiaq 
rekeiav e%ovTa, [/.era nrqq avryjq 
ivepyeiaq, rjyovv (pvo-tKyjq Ibiorvjroq' 
d>v pevovcrav del Kara (pvaiv 8/%a 
rpoic^q rrjv avrav 'icr^ev hia<popdv. 
'AAA' w%, riveq (pao-i, Kara. 
avyKpicriv' Iva j^yj tov avrbv iavrS 
Kara, to avro, nap % §e7, pei^ova 
koi fAtlova XeyufAev. opoepvav y&p> 
ov-X, erepocjivuv, at avyKpla-eiq. ®e« 
$e iroiVjTTj rav oXav Tvoi'fjrov, ditelpu 



Tteparov, aa) diteipla nepaq, Kar' ov- 
Ziva avyKpiverai Xoyov, de) Kara, 
ndvra (pvtriKZq, csaa' ov uvyKpiriKwc, 
dXXrfAav diacpepovra' Kav appr\rlq riq 
koCi apprjKToq dq f/Jav VTioaracriv d[A- 
cporepav yeyovev ev&o-iq, Ttaaav nav- 
roq yevyrov navreXuq hacpevyovo-a 
yvZmv. To ydp ®eioi>, uq yv npo 
crapKojcrecoq, ecrri koi [/.€rd crapKuctv, 
Kara cpvcriv aneipov, acr^erov, dna- 
6eq, dcrvyKpirov, dvaXXolarov, drpe- 
itrov, avroadeveq, Ka\ to nav elireiv, 
ixpetrroq ov<riuheq {aqvov diteipoaBeveq 
dyadov. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



253 



" but the flesh is weak?:) in which manner he did 
" and suffered what belonged to sinless flesh, and 
" proved that for our sakes he had divested himself 
" of his divinity, which was confirmed by his mira- 
" cles, and the natural sufferings of the flesh. For 
" the God of the universe became man for this cause, 
" that by suffering in passible flesh he might redeem 
" our whole race, which was sold unto death ; and 
" by working miracles through the flesh by his di- 
" vine nature, which was impassible, he might bring 

" us to his own unmixed and blessed life. He 

" continued therefore, though incarnate, to be by 
" nature the superinfinite God, having the power of 
" operation which properly belonged to him, which 
" proceeded substantially from his divine nature, but 
" appeared incarnately in his miracles through his 
" all-blessed flesh, that he might be believed to be 
" God, working the salvation of the world through 
" the flesh, which was by nature weakV 



P Matt. xxvi. 41. Hippolytus 
considered Christ to speak these 
words of himself : the spirit 
was his divine nature : the flesh, 
his human nature. He says the 
same thing at vol. II. p. 45. : 
and the Jlesh and the spirit seem 
to be used in the same sense in 
1 Pet. iii. 18. It was interpreted 
in the same way by Athanasius. 
Orat. III. c. Arian. 26. vol. I. 
p. 576. De Incarn. 21. p. 887, 
and by the anonymous author, 
ib. vol. II. p. 569. Polycarp 
however appears to have ap- 
plied it, as modern interpreters 
have done, to the weakness of 
human nature : ad Phil. 7. 
P- 189. 

^ Tlyovev ovv dXyfiaq, Kara. rd$ 



ypa<j>d<;, //'); rpanei*;, b rZv oXav 
Seoq, avOpccizoi ava^dpr^rot;, ol- 
Sei' avTo$ [aovoi; vitdpypv rtyyirric, 
<f)i(TiK0<; rav vxep 'evvoiav, Kar avrvjv 
afxa rqv <Tur'f\piov aapKCcxw ryq $[aq 
Beoryroq i^noi-qcrac, rrj oapKt rrjV 
ivepyeiav, ov TTf.piypa(po^.evqv avrrj 
tid rrjv Kevw(Tiv i ovV uairep ryjq av~ 
rov Beoryroi;, ovra Kal avrvjs (pvcri- 
k&<; 6K(pvotA€i>'fiv. d\X' iv 01; av crap- 
Ktvdeii, Qt'iKuq iv^pyrjTe Bt 5 avryjq ck- 
(paivo^ev/jV ov yap yeyove <pvaei 
Beor'rjq u.era^?,rj6e7cra. rrjv <pv<riv, Yj 
a-dpf; yevo^evrj rrj (pva-ei Beor^roq 
adp^. aW oitep r r)v Kai Oeoryri 
crv[X(pvua-a [AtfAevyKe r^v <pvcrtv koi 
rrjv ivepyetav. KaBuc elitev b 'Earrjp, 
To phs Hvevpa npoBvpov, 'f\ Se <?dp% 
dcdevvjt;. Ka&" yv lv€pyfj<raq re Ka) 
icaBwv airep r)v avapapryrov aapKoq, 



254 HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 

C. 3. p. 227- He then endeavours to illustrate the 
manner in which Christ's divine nature was united 
to and manifested by the human, by the example of 
the thoughts of the human mind, which are ex- 
pressed by the voice and by writing, although they 
have no natural connection with them. " As there- 
" fore in our own case, (if we may liken that which 
" has no likeness at all,) the naturally rational fa- 
cc culty of the mind is expressed, without being 
" changed, by our tongue, which is corporeal : so 
" also in the miraculous incarnation of God, the 
" operation of the entire divine nature, which is 
" omnipotent and creative of all things, is mani- 
" fested by his all-blessed flesh in the divine works 
" which he performed, continuing by nature free 
" from all circumscription, although it shone through 
" the flesh which was by nature finite. For that, 
" which is by nature not created, cannot be circum- 
" scribed by that which is by nature created ; al- 
" though the latter was united to it by an union 
66 which circumscribes all comprehension V 

rr t v vnep rj^av i%iarua-aro Kevuaiv izavrbq aoorrjptav. 

Beoryroq, Bavpaai kou aapKcq naBq- r e 'L~l<rnep ovv i<fi ypvv, (o<rov el- 

yaai <pv<riKaq (3e(3tziGV[A6V'/iv. hid ydp Kacrou to navreXaq dveiKaa-rov,) hid 

rovro yeyovev dvBpccTcoq 6 rav oXav rrjq o~a)[AariKyjq -f^Mov yXaaa-'/jq drpe- 

&eoq, iva crctpKi \tXv TraBrjrrj izdcryjxiv nrooq '/] Kara (pvaiv ryjq t/^%vfc Xo~ 

dttav vjjAuv to t£> Bavdr® itpaBev yiKYj npo<peperai hvvayiq' ovra kou 

XvTpaxrvjTcti yevoq' divaBei hi Beoryri in) ryq vneptyvovq rov ®eov <ra[/.oc- 

hid crapKoq Bavyarovpyav ttpbq r\v raaecoq, hid rvjq avrov itavaylaq 

aK'(\parov avrov kou paKaplav ina- crapKoq, iv oiq dv Be'iKuq ivrjpyrj<r€, 

vaydyri X^wrp' /^eyevrjKiv ovv Ka\ hiyjx, rpoit^q v\ navroKparopiKT], kou 

<rapKuB(uq Kara ry\v (pva-iv &eoq vnep- rav oXcov Troi'/jriKYj rvjq oXvjq Beor'f\roq 

dneipoq, rrjv iavrS avyyevrj kou Kar- ivepyeia hiaheUvvrai, itdarvjq eKroq 

dKXvj'Aov eyjuv ivepyeiav, rrjq pev Kara (pva-tv vtepiypacpyjq hiapevovo-a, 

Beoryroq ovaicchwq eK^voi^evYjV, hid he Kq.v hid aapKoq hieXayipe (pvaei TC€- 

rrjq avrov icavaylaq crapKoq iv roTq 7iepaa-[/.ev'^q' ov yap irecpvKe nepiypd- 

Bav[/.acriv oiKOVoyiKaq iK(j)aivo[AevY}v, <pe.a-Bai yevyrri fyvarei to Kara (pv<riv 

Hva TiiarevB^ ®eoq elvai, hi da-Be" dyevyrov, Kq.v avvecpv avrcp Kara arvX- 

vovq <pvaei aapKoq avrovpywv TYjv rov X'/jipiv ndvra Ttepiypdcpovtrav vovv. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 255 



C. 4. p. 228. " For the mystery of the divine in- 
" carnation is distinguished by the apostles and pro- 
" phets and teachers as bearing a twofold and dif- 
" ferent aspect, since it belongs to the divine nature, 
" which is indefectible, and gives proof of the entire 
" human nature. If therefore we do not acknow- 
" ledge one substantial Word of one operation, never 
" in any way will the effect of both natures be un- 
" derstood. For He, who is always by nature God, 
" becoming, as He wished, by His superinfinite 
" power, man without sin, continues to be what He 
" was, with every thing that we conceive of God : 
" and he also continues to be what he was made, 
" with all that we conceive and naturally under- 
" stand of man : always continuing in each relation 
" without departing from himself, according to his 
" divine and human operations, keeping perfect in 
" either relation his own naturally unalterable con- 
" dition s ." 

C. 5. p. 228. " For lately one Beron, with some 
" others, leaving the fancies of Valentinus, fell into 
" a worse evil, and said, that the flesh, which was 
" assumed by the Word, became in consequence of 
" this assumption capable of performing the same 
" works as the divine nature; and that the divine 



s To ydp fXV(TTf]piov rvjq Belaq 
a-apKucreaq diroaroXoiq re, kou irpo- 
(p'rjraiq, kou didao-KaXoiq, Sitttjv kou 
$ia<popav e%ov dieyvuo~rai rvjv iv itdo~t 
(j)va-iKyjv Beapiav, dve'AAnrovq virdp- 
%ov Beor'/jroq, kou nh'qpovq ivfieiKriKOV 
dvBpcoTrorrjroq ov' eaq dv 011% elq Kara 
ryjv ovo-lav yv copper set Aoyoq (Aidq 
ivepyelaq, ovbeitore KaB' oriovv d^- 
(porepav yvao-Brjo-erai Kivrpiq' 6 ydp 
dei Kara (pvaiv virdpxoov Seoq, virep- 



ovrtelpcp tivvdfAei yevopevoq, aq 'f\Be- 
A'qcrev, dvBpamoq dva^dpr-qroq, oirep 
7]v ivri, jM.e0' taav voeTrai Seoq, kou 
oirep yeyovev eari peS' ocrcov voelrai 
kou yvapiCpaBcu nrecpvKev dvBpccKoq, 
iavrov Kafir 1 eKarepov del [Aevoov 
dveKirraroq, oiq Be'iKuq bfAOv kou dv- 
Bpccrrivaq ivqpyr t o~e, reXeiov Kara rov 
eKarepov Koyov crco^cov eavrov (pvai- 
Kooq dvaXKoiciorov. 



256 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



" nature, on account of the divesture of it, became 
" capable of suffering like the flesh : thus making 
" an alteration, and confusion, and blending, and a 
" change of both into each other. For if the flesh, 
" by being assumed, became capable of performing 
" the works of the divine nature, it therefore be- 
" came by nature to be God, with all that we natu- 
" rally conceive of God. And if the divine nature, 
" by being divested, became capable of suffering like 
" the flesh, it therefore also by nature became flesh, 
" with all that we can by nature understand of the 
" flesh : for those things, which agree in operation 
6< with one another, and perform the same works, 
" and are altogether kindred and subject to the 
" same sufferings, do not admit of any difference of 
" nature. And since their natures are confounded, 
" Christ will be two : and if we divide the persons 
" [of the Trinity] there will be four which cannot 
<{ be tolerated. And according to them how can 
n " Christ be one and the same, at once by nature 

" both God and man ? And according to them what 
" sort of existence will he have, who became man 
" by a change of his divinity, and who was God by 
" an alteration of the flesh? For the transition of 
" these into each other is an entire destruction of 
" both u ." 

t i. e. the Father is one, the a[X(porepai/ (AZTafioXrjv SoyuarfCovTet;. 
Son two, and the Holy Ghost El yap TrpoXytpOelcra vj o-a.pl; ytyove 
one. Athanasius tells the Apol- ravTovpyoq tSJ 0eoTvjTi, fyXovoTi Ka) 
linarians, that the same absurd- (pvaei ®eo$ /Aefl' oa-av (pv<riKu<; voe7- 
ity would arise from their doc- rat ©eoV Ka) el yeyove Kevu6et<ra 
trines : ecrrai §6 /ca0' vfAai; rerpaq aapKi lavTOTza^c, 77 BeoT'qc, Stj- 

avr) rpiaZcx; KarayyeXXofAevvj. Cont. Xovort Ka) cftvcret <ra.pl;, tcrccv 
Apol. I. 9. vol. I. p. 929. (pvaiKcoi, yvupi^ea-Qai ite<pVKe crapi;' 

u Tponrjv l[/.ov, koi rpvpcrw, to yap aXXvjXois o/Aoepyrj, Ka) rav- 

Kai avy/ycr i.v , Ka) triv el$ ScXXvjXovi; rovpya, Ka) o[/.o(pvXa ndvraq, ~ Kai 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



257 



C, 6. p. 229. " It is acknowledged as a doctrine 
" of the Christian religion, that God has in himself 
" an equality and identity, in nature and in opera- 
" tion and in every thing else which belongs to Him, 
" having none of His properties at all unequal, or 
" not corresponding to Himself. If therefore, as 
" Beron says, the flesh, which he assumed, acquired 
" the same natural power of operation which He 
" has, it follows that it also acquired the same na- 
" ture which He has, with all that we conceive of 
" His nature, the property of being without begin- 
e< ning, of being uncreated, of infinity, eternity, in- 
" comprehensibility, and every thing of this kind, 
" which theology contemplates as belonging super- 
" latively to the divine nature x ." It is needless to 
point out, that Hippolytus conceived all these attri- 
butes of Divinity to belong to that nature, which 
Jesus Christ had as God. 

C. 8. p. 229« " They fell into this error, being 
" falsely persuaded, that the divine energy was the 
" property of the flesh, which only appeared through 
u it in the miracles : by which divine energy Christ 
" keeps the universe together, being in substance 



ravroTvaQrj, hiacpopav ovk inifieverai 
tyvveuq' Ka) tyvarcw avioiq crvjKe- 
yy^evccv earai hvaq 6 Xpurroq, kou 
vrpocrwTcav [/,e[/,epi<7 [Kevav rerpaq, ro 
ipevKrorarov Kai itcoq avTOiq eiq i<ai 
o avroq, ®eoq o[A,ov cpvcrei Ka) avQpa- 
Ttoq, 6 Xpiaroq ; noiav 8e Kar av~ 
rovq efe; ttjj/ vitap^iv, [AerafioXrj 6eo- 
T'qroq yevoy,evoq avBpunoq, Kai crapKoq 
fAeranoirio-ei ®eoq ; H yap eiq aK- 
Kykaq rovrav ^eraiuracriq navreKvjq 
i&riv afAcporepav avaipeaiq. 

x Evcrefieq KeKvparai Boy/xa Xpi- 
ariavoTq, Kar avrrjv re (pvariv, Kai 



ttjj/ evepyeiav, Ka) itav k'repov avra 
Ttpoccpveq, laov iavra Ka) ravrov el- 
vai tov @eov, /XTjSej/ eavrS rav eav- 
rov navre'Aaq avinov e%ovra, Ka) 
aKar&XKrfkov. Et roivvv Kara, B'^- 
pava rr\q avrr\q avra izpocrXycpGeTaa 
(pvviKYiq Ivepyelaq yeyovev tj cra,p£, 
^yfhovori Ka) rr\q avrvjq avra yeyove 
<pvceaq ^eBi" ocrav tj (pv&iq, avap- 
yjaq, ayevqaiaq, aneipiaq, aidiorrj- 
roq, aKaraAYjijjiaq, Kai rav 'oca rcv- 
rav Kotf vi:epoy)iv 6 BeoKoyiKoq vitep- 
(pvaq ivopa ttj Beoryri Koyoq. 



s 



258 HIPPOL YTUS, A. D. 220. 



" whatever is conceived of God. But every one 

" confesses as an article of religious belief, that for 
" our salvation, and to bring the world to a state 
" free from change, the Word, who is himself God, 
" the Creator of the universe, having substantially 
" united to himself an intellectual soul with a sensi- 
" tive body from the all-blessed Virgin Mary, by an 
" unpolluted conception without any change, became 
" man, by nature free from wickedness, working by 
" his divine nature, through his all-blessed flesh, the 
" divine acts which did not naturally belong to the 
" flesh ; and by his human nature working the hu- 
" man acts, which did not naturally belong to the 
" divine nature, being capable of suffering by a sus- 
" pension of his divinity 7." 

146. Hippolyti Homilia in Theophania. 
vol. I. p. 261, 2. 
The following passage requires no introduction. 
u You have heard how Jesus came to John, and was 
" baptized in Jordan by him. O extraordinary 
" transaction ! how was the uncircumscribable Ri- 
" ver, which delighteth the city of God, washed in 
" a little stream ! how was the incomprehensible 
" Fountain, which giveth life to all men and hath 
" no end, covered by paltry and temporary waters ! 

y Elq TuvTVjV r\v nkuv/jv Kar'l\- <rv\A7jipiv dy^pavrov, Zt%a rpoi^q, 

yfi'fjO-a.v, KaKaq neurBevreq Wiav ye- evovtriua-aq eavra \pvyfiv voepdv y.erd 

ve<rBai tSjs crapKoq rrjv avrrjq at<rB'/]riK0v cra^aroq, yeyovev dvBpw- 

eK§avBei<rav ev rolq Bavf/.avi Belav tioq (pvaet KaKiaq dXXorpioq, 6 Aoyoq 

evepyeiav, y to nay o XpurToq ovcria- ®eoq' 6 avroq Beor'/jri pev ra Beta 

<raq Kaff o voelrai ®eoq avveyjit Kpa- S<a t5j$ avrov nzavaytaq crapKoq, ovk 

rov^evov 'AXX' evcrefiuq 0//.0A0- ovra (pvcrei rvjq aapKoq evepyav. av- 

yti Tcitjzevav on hid r\y 'f\\/Jav crarvj- Bpcoiror'/jri 8e ra. avSpuitiva, ovk ovra 

p[av, koi to hrjirai npoq arpexpiav to <pv<rei Beoryroq, avoy^ Ttday^ay Beor'/j- 

irav, 0 ray oXoov fyfMOvpyoq e'/c rvjq roq. 
icavaylaq demapBevov Mapiaq, Kara, 



HXPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



259 



cc He that is present every where and faileth no 
M where, who is incomprehensible to angels and in- 
" visible to man, comes to be baptized, as it pleased 
" him. When you hear this, do not understand 
" what is written naturally, but receive the quotation 
" with reference to the incarnation. Wherefore the 
" Lord by the mercifulness of his condescension was 
" not unknown to the nature of the waters in what 
" he did secretly : for the ivaters saw him and were 
" afraid, (Psalm cxiv. 3.) they all but retreated 
" back and fled from their boundary. Whence the 
" prophet many ages before perceived this, and 
" asked, What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou 
"Jleddest ? and thou, Jordan, that thou wast driven 
" back f But they answered and said, We saw the 
" Creator of all things in the form of a servant, and 
" not knowing the mystery of the incarnation, we 
" are driven back through fear z ." 

This secondary application of the words of scrip- 
ture was common in the days of Hippolytus : but 
Justin Martyr seems literally to have believed that 
when Jesus went into the water, fire appeared in it. 
Dial, cum Tryph. c. 88. p. 185. 

147. Hippolyti Homil. in Theophan. c. 3. 
vol. I. p. 262. 

Pursuing the same subject, he makes John the 
Baptist point out the difference between himself and 
Christ. " I am not the Christ, I am a servant, and 
" not master : I am a subject, not a king ; I am a 

z ' HKQveq it at; iXBwv 6 'Ivjiroti? rdcXyjirroi; it'iyy, v) ^ccYjV fiXacrTccvoviTcc 

irpo<; rov 'ludvvvjv iv rS 'IopSav/) nacriv ccvBpuizQiq kou reXoq pr] 'i^ovaa, 

i^aitrlo-B-f] vt: avrov. a nccpato^uv viro nzevt^pSv kou npoo-Kou'pav vfidrav 

•npay^drm. nvuq o ceKepiypctr.roi; tco- iKocXvTrrero. O noivrf, napuv, kou 

TdfAoq o evcppawcov ryv itoXiv rov [A'$a,y.ov a,KoXi[/.irccvo[A€VOt;, o aKard- 

Seov iv oXlyu v^art iXovero. tj ukcc- Xvi%roq dyyeXoiq kou dopctroq ccvBpa- 

s 2 



260 HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 

" man, not God : I loosed my mother's barrenness 
" when I was born, I did not make her virginity 
" barren a : — I am mean, and the least : but he com- 
" eth after me, who is before me ; after me, on 
" account of the time, but before me, on account of 
" the inaccessible and indescribable light of his divi- 
" nity ; I am under authority, he has authority him- 
" self; I have the ground for my bed, he has the 
" heavens b ." 

148, Hippolyti Homil. in Theophan. c. 5. 

vol. I. p. 263. 
The answer which Christ gives to John contains 
this remarkable assertion of his divinity — " Suffer 
" it now, John ; thou art not wiser than I : thou 
" seest as man, I foreknow as God c ." 

149. Hippolyti Homil. in Theophan. c. 7. 

vol. I. p. 263, 4. 
After the word spoken by the voice from heaven, 
This is my beloved Son, in whom lam well pleased, 
Hippolytus makes this remark : " The beloved begets 

Troiij, ewi to fiuirvic-iAa, epxerai, uq virgin after the birth of Christ. 

yvhoKrjcrev. Tavra ockovcov, pj <pv- He calls her denrdpQevoq, vol. I. 

criKccq iKXd^ave rd Xeyopeva, dXX' p. 23 O. 

oiKOVouiKuq dtyjjv rd TcapariQe^eva. b Ovk eljM iyco 0 "Kpicrroq, vTrype- 

A<o kou 0 Kvpioq rfj <piXav6pco%la rvjq rr\q el/M kou ovk avOevryq' iharvjq 

GvyKaToi&da-tuq ovk eXaOev rr\v rav et/xi, ov fiacriXeuq' avOpconoq ov 

vtdrccv (pvaiv, onep ino'iyo-tv iv Kpv(prj' ®eoq' ardpcoaiv eXvcra [AYjrpoq yevvq- 

e&ov yap avrov rd vtcxra kou i(po- Beiq^ ov napQevtav io-rei'pcocra——— 

(3'fj6Yi<rav, i^ear7}(rav [MKpov de7v, kou iyco evreXyq kcu, iXdy^iaroq, ep^erai 

rvjq opoOeaiaq di:e<pvyov. o$ev 0 Tlpo- &e ok'ktco (/.ov oq e^Ttpo<r9ev [aov iartv' 

(p'^rrjq iK itoXXSv rcov ^povoov rovro oitiarw, did rov %povov, e^itpoo-Oev Se, 

Qeupr\a-aq, ineparq, Xeycov } Tt col did to dnpocrirov kou dveK(ppacrrov 

icriv 6dXao~<xa k.t.X, avrd Se diro- rvjq deoryroq (pcoq——iyu vice^ov- 

KpiBevra (.Inov, Tov Ttdvrcov Krio-TTjV a-ioq, avroq Se avre^ovaioq iyco 

iv [Aop<p?j dovXov eito^ev, Ka\ to \kv- to eha<poq kawyjv e%&>, avroq rov ov- 

a-T'ripiov rvjq oiKOVofAiaq dyvorjo-avTeq, pavov e%€i. 

ditb ry\q deiX'iaq iXavvopzOa. c "A(j)eq apri, 'Icodwy, ovk ei {/.ov 

a HippolytUS probably be- o-ocf)arepoq' <rv aq dvOpcoiroq fiXeneiq, 

lieved that Mary continued a iya aq ®eoq itpoyivaaKa. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 261 



" love, and immaterial light begets inaccessible light. 
" This is my beloved Son, who appearing on earth, 
" and yet not separated from the bosom of his Fa- 

" ther, appeared and did not appear This is he 

" who is called the Son of Joseph, and my only -be - 
" gotten according to the divine substance. This is 
" my beloved Son, who was hungry, and fed thou- 
" sands : who was weary, and refreshed the weary : 
66 who had not where to lay his head, and bore all 
" things in his hand : who suffered, and healed 
" sufferings d ," &;c. 

150. Hippolyti Ho mil. in Theophan. c. 10. 
vol. I. p. 264. 

He concludes the subject with an exhortation to 
baptism, and says, " He that descends with faith to 
" the washing of regeneration bids farewell to the 
" evil one, and is numbered with Christ : he denies 
" the enemy, and confesses that Christ is God e ." 
This passage shews what was the meaning of that 
form of words, or profession of faith, which the cate- 
chumens repeated at baptism : when they said that 
they believed in Jesus Christ, they were understood 
to mean that they believed him to be God. It has 
often been shewn, that this is the necessary mean- 
ing of the Creed : and Hippolytus here asserts it to 
be so. 



d 'AyaTryrbq dyditfjv yevvoi, Ka) 
<paq dvAov <puq ditpocnrov. ovroq icrriv 
o vloq [xov 6 dyaTtYjroq, 6 Karoo im- 
(f)ave)q Ka) rav narpaoov koatvccv [Mj 
^cupia-Qelq, ei:e<pdv'fj ovk icpdvYj 
Ovroq eariv b rov 'Iccarjcp bvoy.aC l oi/.e- 
voq vlbq, Ka) ipoq [xovoyevrjq Kara, rrjv 
Be'iKYjV ova lav. Ovr oq i<rriv k. t. A. 
o Tieivav Ka) rpecpccv [/.vpidhaq' Ka) 
kohiwv kou dvanavav rovq Koiticovraq. 



6 e%oov nov r\v K€(f)aXrjv KAivai, 
Ka) itdvra iv ttj %eip) fiacrra^av. 6 
itdcr^av Kai ra, ivddrj la^evoq. 

e c O Karafialvccv perd niarecoq 
elq rb ryjq dvayevvfaeuq Xovrpov, hia- 
rdcrcrerai ra r K0v r f\pa, avvrdcrcrerai 
he ra 'K.oicttco, airapveTrai rov iyfipoy, 
6[AOAoye7 he rb @eov elvai rov Xpi- 
<rrov. 

s 3 



262 



HIPPOLYTTJS, A. D. 220. 



151. Hippolyti Fragmentum in 1 Sam. i, 

vol. I. p. 267. 
The following fragment is imperfect at the be- 
ginning ; but it seems to have contained a mention 
of the different times in which the Word had been 

revealed. " Secondly, by the prophets ; as when 

" he called them by Samuel, and turned the people 
" from serving strangers : and thirdly, when he ap- 
" peared in the flesh, having assumed the human 
" nature from the Virgin f ." 

152. Hippolyti Fragmentum in 1 Sam. i. 

vol. I. p. 267. 
There is a fragment from the same work in which 
it is said, that the three great Jewish festivals were 
typical of some event in our Saviour's life. " At the 
" passover, that he might shew himself about to be 
" sacrificed as a sheep, and to be exhibited as the 
" true Passover ; as the apostle says, Christ who is 
" God our Passover is sacrificed for us? 1 Cor. v. 7- 
According to our present copies, St. Paul merely 
says, Christ our Passover: but Hippolytus quotes 
Xpi(TTo$ o 6eo$-, Christ who is God. Chrysostom also 
reads 6 Beog, and there is other authority for it. 

153. Hippolyti Fragmentum in Psalm, ii. 

vol. I. p. 268. 
" When he came into the world, he was mani- 
" fested as God and man s." After which the dif- 
ferent facts are mentioned which prove his divine 
and human nature. 

f ■ TT t v he hzvrepciv rrjv dia rpfoyv, iv fj evcrctpKoq nctpyv rov Ik 

rav HprHprjTav & c dice rov 'EauovrjX rr\q icctpQevov avQpamov ctvaXaj3av. 

ccvtxKaXav, kcu iiri(TTpe(f)uv rov Xctov § Ovrot; o irpoeXBccv elt; rov Koa^ov 

coco rrjq dovXe'icu; rav aXXocpvXcov' rvjv @ec? ko) ScvOpamoi; i(pavepS9r}. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



263 



154. Hippolyti Fragmentum in Psalm, xxiii. 1. 

vol. I. p. 268. 
" The Saviour himself was the ark made of in- 
" corruptible wood : for his incorruptible and im- 
" perishable tabernacle was thus signified, which 
" produces no corruption of sin : for the sinner 
" makes confession and says, My wounds stink and 
" are corrupt because of my foolishness. (Psalm 
" xxxviii. 5.) But the Lord was without sin, of in- 
" corruptible wood in his human nature, i. e. of the 
« Virgin and the Holy Spirit within, and without 
" the Word of God, covered as it were with the 
" purest gold h ." 

155. Hippolyti Fragmentum in Psalm, xxiv. 7- 

vol. I. p. 268. 
That sublime passage of the Psalmist, Lift up 
your heads, &c. which is unquestionably addressed 
to God Almighty, is referred by Hippolytus to Christ. 
" He comes to the heavenly gates ; angels accom- 
" pany him ; and the gates of heaven are closed : for 
" he is not yet ascended into heaven. He appears 
" now for the first time to the heavenly powers a 
" fleshly body ascending. It is said therefore to 
" these powers, the angels who run before the Sa- 
<c viour and Lord, Lift up your gates, ye rulers, 
" and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the 
" King of Glory shall come in \ n The King of 

h Ka) KijS&JTo? oe e/c HvXav ao-'/j- e/c rr,q napQevov Ka) rov aylov Tlj/et/- 

Tiruv avroq o Gtoryp' ro yap atr^- [/.aroq e<xcc9ev Ka) e^uQtv rov Aoyov 

Ttrov avrov Ka) a^idcpdopov <7K7\voq rov Qeov, ola KaQapaidra ^pvaix 

Tavry Kar'rjyyi'hheTO ro u r $efs.tav TrepiKe/caXu/x-^evo?. This is an al- 

d^apr-fi^aroc, (T'ffK^ova ^va aV 6 yap llision to Exodus xxxvii. I. vid. 

d^apr^traq Ka) i^o^oXoyov^eyoq (p'qai, Irensei Fragm. p. 342. 

Ttpoa-oj^ea-av k. r. a. O Se Kvpioq 1 'Ep^erai eVi rdq ovpa/iaq <nv- 

dvay.dprrjroq vjv, e/c rav da^iircoy Xaq' dyyeXoi avra <rvvo§evov(7i, Ka) 

\vhw ro Kara avBpcoTtov, rovritrnv /ce/c>.e«7|aeVcu elaiv at itvKai rav ov- 

s 4 



264 HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



Glory is evidently Christ. Compare Justin Martyr, 
p. 44. N°. 26. Athanasius expresses the same idea k , 
" The angels who attend upon the Saviour on earth 
" tell the heavenly powers, as he was ascending, to 
" open the gates : the powers above, amazed at his 
" wonderful incarnation, ask, Who is this King of 
" Glory ?" &c. In another place he represents Christ 
as uttering the words, Lift up, &c. : not, as he ob- 
serves, that he needed them to be opened for him- 
self, " for he is the Lord of all things, nor is any 
" created thing shut against its Creator, but he 
" opened them for us to enter in V 

156. Hippolyti Fragmentum in Daniel, et 

Susan, vol. I. p. 277. 
This is a commentary upon the history of Su- 
sanna : and at the 35th verse, And she weeping, 
&c. Hippolytus remarks, " For by her tears she 
" drew down the Word from heaven, who by his 
" tears was to raise up Lazarus when dead m ." Hip- 
polytus must therefore have believed that Jesus was 
in heaven at this time, which was nearly 600 years 
before his incarnation. 

157. Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. I. p. 281. 

This is a fragment from a Homily upon the para- 
ble of the Talents, Matt. xxv. 14. in which the per- 
son who received one talent seems to have been 
compared to certain heretics. " One might say, 
" that these persons and heretics resembled each 

pavav' QvleKa yap avafiefirjKev elq 1 Delncarn. 25. vol. I. p. 69. 

ovpavovq' Uparoq vvv (paiverai icuc, Orat. I. C. Arian. 41. p. 446. 
hvva,[A€<ri ra7q ovpavlaiq crccpt; ava- m Aid ydp ~Zv taKpvoov icpel'AKero 

fictivovcroi. Xeyerai ovv iaiq ovvd^eaiv rov aw ovpavuv Aoyov, rov peKhovra. 

vivo rav dyyeXuv rav irporpe^ovrcov tid daKpvuv iyeipeiv tov AaC/xpov re- 

tov ^coTrjpcc Kcti Kvpiov, ' Apare k.t.X. OvyKora. 
k In Psalm, vol. I. p. 1041. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



265 



" other, being alike in error : for the latter either 
" think that Christ came into life a mere man, de- 
" nying the talent of his divinity : or they acknow- 
" ledge him to be God, but deny his human nature : 
" teaching that he deceived the eyes of those who 
" saw him, appearing as a man, though having no 
" human nature, but that he was rather a sort of 
" phantastic delusion ; such as Marcion and Valen- 
" tinus and the Gnostics, who by separating the 
" Word from the flesh reject the one talent, the 
" human nature n ." 

158. Hippolyti Fragmentum in Prov. ix. 1. 
vol. I. p. 282. 

The first verse of this chapter is Wisdom hath 
builded her house ; upon which he says, 66 Christ, 
" the Wisdom and Power of God and the Father, 
" hath builded himself an house, the incarnation 
" from the Virgin." See N°. 286. Athanasius also 
interprets Prov. ix. 1. of Christ becoming incarnate. 
Orat. 2. c. Arian. vol. I. p. 512. 

In the second verse we read, She hath mingled 
her wine : upon which we find, " The Saviour hav- 
" ing united his divine nature to the Virgin by the 
" flesh like unmixed wine, was born of her without 
" mixture God and man°." 

n TovTQvq kcu Tovq eTepoho^ovq uajcep MapKiav kou OvccXcvtivoc KOU 

(p/jveiev dv Tiq yeiTvidv, &(pctXXo[A€- ol Yvuo-tikoi rfq crapKoq cc'noSiacr'jiuv- 

vovq napcniXYio'luq' kou yccp KaKtivoi, Teq iov Aoyov, to ev TaXavzov ccko- 

YjToi iptXov dvBpaitov o{AoXoyovo~i Tie- (SdXXovrcu Trjv ivavBpuiiyjcTiv. 

(pvKevou tov Xpjcrrov elq tov (3iqv, Tr\q 0 'Xpta-Toq, 75 tov ®eov kcu Tlcnpoq 

OeoTYjToq avTov to TaXavTov ctpvovue- aocpia. kou hvvccutq opKo'boy.-qo'ev eccvTy 

vol' '/jTOt, tov ®eov o^oXoyovvTeq dvai- oIkov, tvjv e/c itcupBLvov a-dpKcoaiv 

povTou ndXiv tov d,vBpaitov, ne<pavTa- Kai eKepaaev elq KpaTYjpa tov eav- 

aicoKevou §&d<7K0VT€<; Tccq oipeiq avzcov T7\q olvov, elq ttjv napBevov t\v iavTov 

toov Beayevccv, aq dvBpunov, ov (pope- %eoTv\~a evixraq t5j crapKi, ooq olvov 

aavTct dvBpmcov, dXXd So'/ojcr/v tivcc aKpctTov, 0 'EccT^p eyevv'f\B'f\ e£ avryq 

(pao-[jt.a,T6§Yi (xaXXov yeyovevou' olov dcvyyvTOvq, @eoq kcu dvBpocKoq. 



266 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



159. Hippolyti Demonstratio contra Judceos. 
c. 7. vol. II. p. 4. 

This book was written to convince the Jews of 
their blindness in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. At 
p. 131. I have given quotations from the second and 
fourth chapters : and in this place Hippolytus makes 
use of the very just argument, that since the last 
punishment of the Jews was far greater than any 
former one, we may infer that their crime was 
greater, and this was, that they crucified the Lord 
of Life. Hippolytus asks, " Why was the temple 
" destroyed ? Was it for the making of the calf in 
" days of old? Was it for the idolatry of the people? 
" Was it for the blood of the prophets ? Was it for 
" the adulteries and fornications of Israel ? By no 
" means : for they always obtained pardon and 
" mercy for all those things : but it was because 
" they killed the Son of their Benefactor ; for it is 
" he, who is coeternal with the Father p." 

If the Son were simply called aiho^ 9 eternal, it 
might be said, that he was so prospectively but not 
retrospectively, as we say that the souls of men are 
immortal, because they will never have an end after 
they have once had a beginning : but when the Son 
is said to be coeternal with the Father, we must 
understand that the Son is eternal in the same sense 
as the Father is, or in the language of the schools, 
a parte ante, as well as a parte post. 
160. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 2. vol. II. p. 7. 

This work was written against Noetus, who adopt- 
ed the Patripassian heresy, and conceived the Father 
and the Son to be actually and numerically one, so 

P > «XX' qti rov vtov tov evepyerov eBavdzcctxav' avroi; yap iariv o tw 

Ttarpi vvva&nq. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



267 



that it was the Father who was born of the Virgin, 
and who died upon the cross. We may observe of 
this heresy, that its existence is a strong proof, that 
the divinity of Christ was a fixed article of belief in 
those days. Theodoret informs us, that the doc- 
trines of Noetus had been maintained before by Epi- 
gonus and Cleomenes % The Patripassians, in com- 
mon with the catholic church, believed that Jesus 
Christ was God, and that he was one with the 
Father : but their conviction of this doctrine led 
them into the Sabellian error of confounding the 
persons, and even beyond it. 

That Noetus fully believed in the divinity of 
Christ, is evident from the reasoning by which he 
and his followers thought to support their doctrine. 
They first quoted texts to prove the unity of God, 
such as Exod. iii, 6. xx. 3. Isaiah xliv. 6. xlv. 5 : 
after which they said, " If therefore I acknowledge 
" Christ to be God, he must be the Father ; for if 
" Christ is God, and yet suffered, being himself God, 
" therefore the Father suffered, for he was the Fa- 
" ther r ." Again, "For Christ was God, and suf- 
" fered for us, being himself the Father^ that he 
" might save us. Neither, as they say, can we rea- 
" son in any other way ; for the apostle acknow- 
" ledges one God, when he says, Whose are the 
"fathers, of whom Christ came according to the 
"flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever*? 



i Haer. Fab. III. 3. vol. IV. 
p. 227-8. 

r Ei ovv XptcTov o^oXoya ®eov, 
avroq apa. iariv 6 Xlarf\p' d yap 
£<ttiv o ®eoq, enctOev de Xpiarroq, av- 
Toq uv @eo?, apa ovv enadey llaryjp, 
Jlar'/jp yap avroq *r\v. 



s Xpiatlq yap rjv Qeoq, Ka\ tna- 
cryjzv Si' vj^aq, avioq uv UaTVjp, 'Iva 
Kal (Tcoaai vjfxaq Suj/'/j07j. "AXXo 
(p'/]aiv, oi ZvvaiAtBa Keyeiv' na\ yap 
o airotTToXoq eva Selv ofAoXoyeT, Aeyav, 
av oi izarepeq k. t. A. 



268 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.220. 



I have already quoted this passage in part at p. 90. 
where I observed, that Hippolytus agreed with Noe- 
tus in giving to these words of St. Paul the sense 
which they bear in our English version, and he 
adds, " He who is over all is God, for he says boldly, 
" All things are delivered unto me by the Father, 
" (Matt. xi. 27.) God who is over all is blessed, and 
" having become man is God for ever : for thus 
" John also said, which is, and which was, and 
66 which is to come, God Almighty. (Rev. i. 8.) 
" He is right in calling Christ Almighty t ." 

161. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 3. vol. II. p. 7. 
Hippolytus then shews that though the church 

held a plurality of persons in the Godhead, it be- 
lieved in the unity of God : " For who will not say, 
" that there is one God ? but then he will not deny 
" the incarnation":" and he explains what he means 
by the incarnation, ohovo^la x at p. 9. " This Word 
" was truly the mystery of incarnation from the 
" Holy Ghost and from the Virgin y." The same 
also is said in the following passage. 

162. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 4. vol. II. p. 8. 
Noetus had quoted Isaiah xlv. 14. Surely God 

is in thee, and there is none else ; there is no 



i&riv, "Keyei yap ovru lAera irapp'/j- 
aiaq, Tiavra. y.oi napabedorat vno 
tov Uarpoq. 'O cov eivi ndi/rav ®eog 
evKoyrjToq yeyevrjrai, kou av9pairo<; 
yevoptvoq @eo$ ianv elq rovq ouuva? 
ovrooq yap Kai 'laaw/iq elnev, c O av, 
Kai o rjv, kou b ep%o/x.evo$, b ®eoq b 
nawoKpaTccp. Ka\u<; elivev navro- 
Kpdropa Xpio-rov. p. 10. In the 
printed text of the Apocalypse, 

i. 8. it IS only b navTOKparap, 



without o ®eo?, which is a va- 
rious reading not noticed by 
Griesbach : but the words may 
perhaps be taken from Rev. xi. 

u Ttq yap ovk ipei eva ®ew elvai ; 
aXV ov Trjv otKGVOfAiav avaip'f]<xei. 

x See p. 70. note °. 

y OTt OVTCOq (AVO-T'fipiQV OIKQ- 

vofAiag eK iTvev[/>aroq ayiov yjv ovroq 0 
Koyoc, kou itapdei'Qv. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



269 



God: from which declaration of the unity of God 
he argued that Christ was the Father. Hippo- 
lytus quotes the whole passage from ver. 11 to 15; 
and then says, 6S The words are, Surely God is in 
66 thee : but in whom is God, except in Christ Jesus, 
" the paternal Word, and the mystery of the Incar- 

" nation ? and by the words God is in thee, he 

" shewed the mystery of the incarnation, that by 
" the Word becoming flesh and being made man, 
" the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the 
" Father, it being the Son who lived among men z ." 
163. Hippolyti contra JVoetum, c. 4. vol. II. p. 9- 
Having quoted the words of St. John, iii. 13. jVo 
man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is 
in heaven, he asks, " Will Noetus say, that the flesh 
" was in heaven ? The flesh, which was of the 
" Spirit and the Virgin, which was offered as a 
" gift by the paternal Word, is the perfect Son of 
" God. It is plain therefore, that he offered him- 
" self to the Father. But before this, the flesh was 
" not in heaven ; who then was in heaven, but the 
« Word without flesh, who was sent to shew that 
" while he was upon earth, he was also in hea- 
" ven a ?" 

That Christ was in heaven, while he was upon 

z 'Ev aoi ovv, (pYjtriv, 6 @eoq ianv. yjv ; ianv pev ovv aocpi Yj vitb rov 

'Ev t'ivi he 6 ®eoq ccXa' rj iv ~Kpicrra Aoyov rov Ttarpaov ■npocreveyfie'iGa 

'Itjctod rS irarpaa Aoya, kou rS f/,v- hcopov, Yj e/c nzvevfAocroq kou napQevov, 

CTTYjpia rvjq 0iK0V0[Aiaq ; To he reXsioq vlbq &eov ctTcohehtiy^evoq. 

elntiv, on iv o~o\ o ®eoq i<rnv, ihet- Ylpoh'fjAov ovv, on avrbq eavrbv irpo<r- 

Kvvev ^vcTTYipiov oiKOvo[/.loi,q ) on o"€- e(pepev ra Hotrpt. Upo he rovrov iv 

aaoKCH^lvov rov Aoyov kou ivocvQpa- ovp".va crocpl; ovk y)v. Tiq ovv y)v iv 

•KYjaavroq 6 UscrYjp Yjv iv rep via, kou ovpotv® aXk' Yj Aoyoq aaapKoq, lvko* 

o vibq iv ra Ylocrp), i^icoAtrevouevov crrocXelq iva. hei^Yj avrov in) yvjq ovroc 

rov vlov iv ccvQpuitoiq. eivou kou iv ovpocva. 

a Myn e/jet", on iv ovpavcp <jap% 



270 



HIPFOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



earth, seems to be declared by the words of St. John 
above quoted. f O ev too ovpav® can hardly have 
any other meaning. 

164. Hippolyti contra Noe'tum, c. 8. vol. II. p. 12. 
After many arguments to refute the doctrine of 

Noetus, Hippolytus thus concludes ; " He is com- 
" pelled therefore, though unwillingly, to confess the 
" Father God Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son 
" of God, who is God made man, to whom the Fa- 
" ther hath subjected all things, except Himself and 
" the Holy Ghost, and that these are in this man- 
" ner three. But if he wish to learn, how there is 
" said to be one God, let him know, that His essence 
" is one, and as to essence there is one God ; but 
" with reference to the incarnation, the manifesta- 
" tion of Him is threefold b ." 

165. Hippolyti contra Noe'tum, c. 11. vol. II. p. 13. 
Having shewn, that there is only one God, and 

yet that His Son was always present with Him, he 
says, " And thus there was another present with 
" Him. But when I speak of another, I do not 
" mean that there are two Gods, but I speak of him, 
" as light from light, or as water from a fountain, 
" or as a ray from the sun : for the essence is one, 
" that which is of the whole, and the whole is the 
" Father, from whom is the essential Word c ." 

b 'AvdyxYjV ovv e%ei kou [Ay BeXav Seoq, ocrov "be Kara, r\v oiKOVOf^lav, 

o(Ao\oye7v Uarepa @eov itavroKpdro- rpi%yq q enibei^iq. 
pa, Kai Xpicrrov 'lrjcrovv vlov ®eov c Kai ovruq naplcrraro avrcp kre- 

®eov avQpaTiov yevopevov, o) ndvra poq. "Erepov $e Xeywv ov duo ®eovq 

Uarvjp literate napeKToq eavrov Ka) Xeyce, aXX' aq (paq Ik cpuroq, vj tbq 

Uvevparoq dytov, Kai rovrovq elvai vdvp e/c nrjyyjq, vj aq aKrlva dito rfki- 

ovraq rpla. Ei le fiovXerai ^aBeiv, ov. Lvvapiq yap pa y Ik rov nav- 

itZq elq ®eoq ditoteUvvra^ yivcc- roq, to be ndv Uaryp, e£ oii dvvatuq 

crKerco on y.ia bvvajxiq rovrov, Kai Aoyoq. 
%<70V pev Kara r-qv Zvvaj/.iv elq ecrn 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



271 



166. Hippolyti contra JVoetum, c. 12. vol. II. p. 14. 
The manner in which Hippolytus quotes Isaiah 

Ixv. 1. and applies it to Christ, shews that he be- 
lieved the Father and the Son to be one God. Hav- 
ing said, that it was Christ who inspired the pro- 
phets, he remarks, " The Word, who was with the 
" prophets, spoke concerning himself : for he was 
" then the herald of himself, shewing that the Word 
" was to appear amongst men ; for which cause he 
" used this exclamation, / am seen of them that 
6i asked not for me, I am found of them that sought 
66 me not. But who is it that was seen, but the 
" Word of the Father, whom the Father sent, and 
46 shewed to men His own power d ?" 

167. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 13. vol. II. p. 15. 
He also quotes Jer. xxiii. 18. which according to 

his own translation would be, Who hath stood in 
the substance of the Lord, and hath seen His 
Word e V upon which he observes, "The Word 
" of God is the only word which is visible : the word 
" of man is audible. When he speaks of seeing 
" the Word, I must believe that he, who was sent, 
" was visible. Nor was this any other than the 
<e Word. But that he was sent, Peter bears wit- 
" ness, who said to the centurion Cornelius, God 
66 hath sent his Word to the children of Israel, 
" by the preaching of Jesus Christ : he is God the 
" Lord of all*." (Acts x. 36.) 

d 'Ev rovroic, rolvvv itoXirevo^evoi; Aoyoq rov Uarpoq, ov anoo-rekXoov 

o Aoyoq i(p6eyyero irep) iavrov, Uarvjp ideiKwev avOpanoiq rvjv <nap 

yap avroq iavrov Kypvl; eyevero, Set- iavrov i^ovaiav ; 
kvvwv peXXovra Aoyov (pai've<r9ai ev e The Septuagint translation 

avOpanaiq, IC Yjv alrlav ovrwq £[3oa, is almost precisely the same. 

'E[A<pavv)<; iyevoprjv k. r. X. 17$ Se f T/j e<mj ev viroirr^[/.ari Kvptov, 
e<rr\v 0 ifAcfyavriq yevopevoq aXK" tj 0 Kal idev rov Aoyov avrov ; Aoyoq 5e 



272 HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



I have quoted this passage for the sake of re- 
marking two things: 1. that in the citation from 
the Acts Hippolytus understood the Word in the 
sense in which St. John speaks of the Logos, as 
Jesus Christ and 2. that he inserts the word God, 
which is not in our copies of the Acts, where we 
only read, he is Lord of all. 

168. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 17. vol. II. 
p. 18, 19. 

" Let us then believe according to the tradition 
" of the apostles, that God the Word came down 
" from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary, that being 
" incarnate of her, and assuming the human, I mean, 
" the reasonable soul, being made every thing that 
" man is without sin, he might save him that had 
" fallen, and might give immortality to men who 
" believe in his name. We have therefore entirely 
" demonstrated the Word of truth, that the Father 
" is one, whose Word is present with Him, by whom 
" He made all things : whom in later times, as we 
" said above, the Father sent for the salvation of 
" man. He was declared by the law and the prophets 
f c as about to come into the world. In the same 
" manner therefore that he was declared, in this he 
" also came and manifested himself of the Virgin 
" and the Holy Ghost, being made a new man, hav- 
" ing the heavenly part, which belonged to his Fa- 
" ther, as the Word, and the earthly part, as of the 

Seov povoq oparoq, avOpaitov §e aicov- crov' ovroq £<7Tiv o &eoq 6 T.dviav 

aroq. "Onov bpq,v tov Aoyov "keyet, Kvptoq. 

ccvayKYjv tyu nia-reveiy opccrov tovtov £ The same has been thought 

aireo-TaXpevov. Ovk aXXoq rjv ScXX' by some commentators eoncern- 

% 6 Koyoq. "Ot* Senear a,\Qri, ing the Word mentioned in Luke 

pccprvpei Herpoq 'E^anea-retXev i. 2. Heb. iv. 12. &C. See Wa- 

6 ©eoq tov Aoyov avTov roTq vldiq terland, III. p. J 54 : but such in- 

'Io-pavjX ha K^pvy/^aroq 'lyo-ov Xpi- terpretations are rather fanciful. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



273 



ct old Adam, being incarnate of the Virgin. He 
<e came into the world, and was manifested God in 
w the body, coming as perfect man : for he was 
" made man, not by delusion or by suffering any 
" change, but really h ." 

169. Hippolyti contra Noetiim, c. 18. vol. II. p. 19- 
" So also he does not refuse his human properties, 
" though proved to be God, when he is hungry and 

" weary and when he sleeps upon a pillow, who 

M by nature requires no sleep, as being God ; and 
" prays for the cup of suffering to pass away, who 

" for this very cause came into the world and is 

" strengthened by an angel, who strengthens them 
" that believe on him— and is betrayed by Judas, 
" who knew Judas what he was : and is insulted by 
" Caiaphas, who before was honoured by him as 
" God : and he is set at nought by Herod, who is 

" to judge all the earth and he is mocked by 

" the soldiers, who has thousands of thousands and 
" myriads of myriads of angels and archangels stand- 
" ing by him : and he is fixed by the Jews to a cross, 
" who fixed the heaven like a chamber : (Isaiah xl. 
" 22.) and crying to the Father, he commends his 



h II icrrevo- 00 u.ev ovv kcctcc rr;v tca- 
pdSocriv rav diroa-roXav, oti ®eoq 
Aoyoq a.-!: ovpavZv KocryjXBev elq r r qv 
ayiav ixapQevov M.ocpiocv, Xva, crapKeo- 
8 elq e| avrr^ Xafiwv te kou x^v^yjV 
rrjv dvdpanrivrjv, XoytKrjv he Xeyco, 
yeyovaq Ttdvra ocra ecrrh a,v8pcaicoq i 
eKToq dpiaprlaq, aaarj tov nemu- 
kotoc, kou dcpOapcriotv dvOp&noiq ticl- 
pdo~x{i Totq 7iiarevovcriv elq to ovopta 
avrov. 'Ev T.aGiv ovv ditobelieiKTou 
Vjfjuv TTjq ccXf]8elaq Xoyoq, oti elq icrrh 
6 Ilary^, ov ndpecni Aoyoq, ov rd 
TtavTa eTTOL'tjcrev ov varepoiq Kuipoiq, 
KaOcoq e'ntcifAtv dvarepa, d%etrr(iXev 



0 Ylaryp npoq crccT'/jplocv dv6pamav. 
Ovroq (jid voptov kou Ylpo<p-/]rav e/oj- 
pv%6rj itapecroyevoq elq tov koct/xov. 
Kcc6' ov ovv rpoizov iK'fipvyB't], Kara 
tovtov Kou irapccv icpavepcoaev lavrcv 
e/c TtapQevov kou dyiov Wvev^aroq, 
Kouvoq dvOpwnoq yevoyevoq, to [xev ov- 
pdviov eyjAV to narpSov aq Aoyoq, to 
§e eirlyetov &q e/c iraXatov 'ASa,//, rjia 
napBevov aapKOvyevoq. Ovroq irpoeX- 
9uv elq Kocrptov &eoq iv <r apart, i<pa- 
vepadrj, dv8pw%oq reXeioq itpoeXQuv' ov 
ydp Kara tyavratjlav >j rpoTtrjV, dXX' 
dXrficcq yevopevoq dvBpicnoq. 



T 



274 HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



" Spirit, who is inseparable from the Father ; and 
" bowing his head gives up the ghost, who said, / 
" have power to lay down my life and have power 

" to take it again. (John x. 18.) This is God, 

" who was made man for our sakes, to whom the 
" Father hath subjected all things. (1 Cor. xv. 

170. Hippolyti e Comment, in Genesin, vol. II. 
p. 24. 

Speaking of the death of Christ, he says, " He 
" was not holden by death k , but although he was 
" among the dead like a man, he continued to live 

" by the nature of the Godhead and the Son is 

" the Lord of Hosts, who did no sin, but rather 
" offered himself for us as a sweet-smelling savour 
" to God and the Father 1 ." This expression of 
Lord of Hosts, as applied to the Son, is very re- 
markable ; and the more so, when we find Hippoly- 
tus in other places expressly referring it to God the 
Father, as at p. 28. " But their bows were broken, 



1 Ovrooq ovv kou rd dvBpojTtiva 
eavrov ovk d-navalverai ivteiKvv^evoq 

®eoq gov, ore ireiva koi KOitia 

Ka) lici izpocrKe<pdXaiov KaBevhei 6 
avnvov e%uv rrjv (pvcriv aq &eoq, Kai 
ntorriplov ndBoq itapaireirai 6 8ta 
rovro rcapayeyovaq iv koo-[acc 
Ka) vit dyyeXov evtvva\f.ovrai o ivhv- 
va^wv rovq elq avrov iziarevovraq — 
Ka) vtiq 'lovfia itapatl^orai o yivoj- 
<xkoov rov 'lovfiav riq iariv' Ka) dri- 
[AaC^rai vito Kaidcpa, o nporepov in 
avrov leparevofxevoq ooq &eoq' (1. for- 
san v% avrov leparevopevov ripa- 
pevoq uq €>eoq.) Ka) viib 'Hpafiov e|- 
ovBeveirai o peXXcov Kp7vai iracrav rvjv 

<yq V KO u vivo crrpariccrcov itai^e- 

rai a irape<rr^Kacri %lXiai ^iXidteq 
Ka) \Kvplai [Avpidheq dyyeXav Kai 



dp%ayyeXav' Ka) vno 'lovhaicov %vXop 
•npoo-nriyvvrai, b irrjljaq coq Kapdpav 
rov ovpavov' Ka) npoq Tlarepa [3oZv 
TtapariBerai to irvev/xa b dyjupiaroq 
rov Uarpoq' Ka) kX'ivgov KetpaXvjv 
iKnvti, b eiitaq, , 'E^ovcriav eya k.t.X. 

1 Ovroq o ®ebq, b dvBpccncoq $i 
ypaq yeyovaq, a itdvra virera^ev 
Harrip. 

k i. e. death did not retain 
him ; vid. Acts ii. 24. 

1 Ov yeyove rep Bavdr<p Karoypq' 
dXX' et Ka) yeyovev iv veKpoiq wq av~ 
Bpwnoq, ccKo^e^evtiKe Zfiv ry rvjq Beo- 

TYfeoq (pvcrei Kvpioq 8e rav 'bvvd- 

peav 6 vlbq, oq ov Tceitoi^Kev df^ap- 
riav, eavrov y.aXXov eBve vnep 
ypav elq ocr^v evooViaq rep @e£ Ka) 
Tlarpi. 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 275 



" and the nerves of their arms were loosed by the 
" hand of the mighty one of Jacob, i. e. of God and 
" the Father, who is Lord of Hosts." We may re- 
member also that Justin Martyr and Tertullian 
mentioned Lord of Hosts as one of the titles which 
belong to the Son : see p. 43. N°. 26. p. 237. 
N°. 134. 

171. Hippolyti e Comment, in Gen. vol.11, 
p. 27, 8. 

This is a commentary upon that part of Jacob's 
prophecy which concerns the tribe of Dan, Gen. 
xlix. 16, &c. ; and having explained the latter part 
of the 17th verse to relate to the death of Christ, he 
says, " But although the rider fell, having volun- 
" tarily endured the death of the flesh, yet he will 
66 be restored to life, taking the Father as an assist- 
" ant and support. For the Son, being the power of 
" God and the Father^ restored his own temple to 
" life m . Thus he is said to have been saved by the 
" Father, having been in danger as a man, although 
" by nature he is God, and himself keeps together in 
" good order the whole visible and invisible creation. 
" Thus St. Paul understood and said of him, Though 
" he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth 
" by the power of God n ." (2 Cor. xiii. 4.) It ap- 
pears that Hippolytus interpreted the power of God 

m There is a passage in Atha- rbv Uarepa. Avva[M<; yap av rov 

nasius very similar to this : Kai @eov Kai Yiarplq 6 vloq rov 'lliov av- 

avrbc, 8e £<rriv o eyelpav rov '&iov vaov, rov i^awyovei vaov. Tavry <Te<rZ- 

uc, ®eo?, Kai ^fcovq t,cc7jv ry Itla cr8ai Xeyerai nzapa rov liarpo*; ke- 

capKi. De Incarn. 2. vol. I. Kiv"bvvevKo)q &<; avBpoMQi;, tcctfroi Korea, 

p. 872. (pvcnv v-napyjAV ®eo<;, Kai oX'qv avroq 

n S AXX 5 el Kai nenrccKev 0 ttnievt;, el<; to ev that Gweyjuv opar'/jv re Kai 

iOeXovrTjq avarXag rov rrj*; arapKoq doparov kt'hiiv. Ovroo itov avveiq Kai 

Bdvarov, aXX' ovv Kai avafitacrerai 0 decTireo-ioq Uavkoi; irepi avrov (pYjo-i, 

crvKhrptropa Kai iirayayov izoiov^evoc, Ei Kai k. r. A- 

T 2 



276 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



in this passage to mean the divine power which was 
inherent in Christ. It was the weakness of his hu- 
man nature, which caused him to suffer death : it 
was the power of the divine nature, which caused 
him to rise again. This interpretation is confirmed 
by the following passage. 

172. Hippolyti e Comment, in Gen. vol.11, p. 28. 

" For although he endured the cross, he lived 
" again, as being God, having trampled upon death 0 ." 
Another extract from the Commentary of Hippolytus 
upon Genesis has been already given at p. 121. and 
Grabe in his notes to bishop Bull's Defence of the 
Nicene Faith, (II. 8. 2.) adds the following frag- 
ment, which was not published by Fabricius. It 
is upon Gen. xlix. 26. where the LXX read, The 
blessings of thy Father and thy Mother ; upon 
which Hippolytus observes, " It is quite evident that 
" by this is intended the generation of the only-be- 
" gotten from God and the Father, and that from 
" the blessed Virgin, according to which he is con- 
" ceived to be, and appeared as, a man. For being 
" by nature and in truth Son of God and the Fa- 
" ther, he endured for our sakes to be born of a 
" woman p." 

173. Hippolyti e Comment, in Gen. vol. II. 
p. 30. 

" The most illustrious of the Fathers, and those 
" who arrived at the very extremity of virtue, were 
" behind the glory of Christ. For they were serv- 

0 Ei yap Ka) averXrj aravpov, aKk' //.a/yeTcu, Kaffb voeirat Kai netyyvev 

cbq Qeoq aveBla, TtaT'qcraq rov Qavot,- avOpanroq' vloq yap vnapyjuv (pvaiKuq 

tov. Te Ka) aXrjOaq tqv @eoS Ka) Harpoq, 

P 2a<££$ T6 Ka) hapyaq 'q T€ e/c 8*' ^aq averXv} r\v hia ywaiKoq re 

&eov Ka) narpoq yivvqcnq tov povoye- Ka) yA\rpaq ykvvtpiv. 
vovq, Ka) §ia rrjs aylaq irapOevov cry- 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 277 



" ants : but the Lord, who was the Son, supplied 
" them with all by which they became illustrious. 
66 Therefore also they say, Of his fullness have all 
" we received \" 

174. Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. II. p. 32. 

The following passage is quoted, as containing the 
words of Hippolytus, by John of Antioch, who lived 
in the tenth century. " The Virgin, when she 
" brought forth a body, brought forth also the Word, 
" and therefore is mother of God : the Jews also, 
" when they crucified a body, crucified God the 
" Word ; nor does any distinction between the Word 
" and the human body occur in the scriptures: but 
" he is one nature, one person, one hypostasis, one 
" operation, the Word who was God, the Word who 
" was man, as in truth he was r ." This is said to 
be taken from a work of Hippolytus written against 
those who attack the incarnation of the IV jrd of 
God on account of his consubstantiality with the 
Father ; and was evidently directed against the he- 
resy of Valentinus and others, who considered Jesus 
and Christ to be two separate persons ; or in other 
words, that the human nature was not united to the 
divine, but that both continued distinct. 

There is another fragment, said to be taken from 
a treatise of Hippolytus upon the union of the body 

1 KaTo-Mv ovv apa. Xpunov que cum crucifixerunt corpus, 

So^tj? kcju ol tZv %arepav eTtiarypoTa- crucifixerunt Deum Verbura : 

tci Ka) elq Avjfiy vjKwxeq a,f»€Trjq' ol neque distinctio ulla inter Ver- 

yXv yap -qa-av oIk€T'm' 6 §e Kvpioq vloq bum et corpus hominis occurrit 

ra fo* &v iKeTvoi yeyovacri "hafATtpoi, in divinis scripturis : sed ipse 

K€xap'/jy/jKev avroiq. Totydproi Ka) est natura una, persona una, 

Aeyova-iv, k. t. X. suppositum unum, operatio una: 

r Virgo, cum peperit corpus, Verbum Deus, Verbum homo, 

Verbum quoque peperit, et id- quemadmodum erat, 
circo est Deipara : Judsei quo- 

T S 



278 



HIPPOLYTUS, A.D. 220. 



of Christ with his divinity, in which it is said that 
" he who was created was by this union uncreated ; 
" and that he, who was uncreated, by the same union 
" became created ; since there is one nature com- 
" posed of those two entire parts s ." 

There is also another fragment, quoted from a let- 
ter of Hippolytus to Dionysius bishop of Cyprus : 
and the same passage may be found in a letter said 
to be written by Julius, bishop of Rome, to Diony- 
sius of Alexandria. But there is reason to think, 
that the letter was really written by Apollinarius ; 
and the doctrine contained in it is not that of the 
catholic church V 

175. Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. II. p. 45. 

Leontius of Byzantium has preserved the following 
fragment as written by Hippolytus upon the prophe- 
cies of Balaam : " but that he might be proved to 
" contain both in himself, the substance of God and 
<c the substance of man ; as the apostle also says, A 
" mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
" Jesus. (1 Tim. ii. 5.) But a mediator is not of 
" one (Gal. iii. 20.) man, but of two. It was neces- 
" sary therefore that Christ who became a mediator 
" between God and man, should receive a kind of 
" pledge from both, that he might appear a mediator 
" between two persons u ." Compare Irenaeus N°. 58. 
p. 97. and Cyprian N°. 283. 

s ilium, qui creatus est, 11 iva, §e Sei%05/ to fwajn- 

increatum esse per unionem : et <p6repov e%av h eav7% r^v re rov 

ilium increatum per eandem Seov ova-iav kou tyjv ef avOpunuv, aq 

unionem creatum fieri, quando- kou 0 a-KocnoXoq Xeyei, ueo-iTyv Seov 

quidem natura una ex duabus kou ccvdpaituv, avQpuvoq Xpto-Toc 5 I>j- 

illis integris partibus constat. <rovq. 'O §e ^eahfiq kvoq avQpanov 

t See the edition of the works ov ytverai, dXXa, dvo. "ESe* ovv rlv 

of Dionysius of Alexandria, p. Xpiarov ®eov kou dvOpaitav f^eo-hyjv 

297. yevopevov nap d[A<poTepcov appafiZva, 



HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220. 



176. Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. II. p. 45. 

The following is taken from a work of his upon 
Easter. " He was entire to all persons and in all 
" places ; and he who filled all space divested him- 
" self, and contended against all the powers of the 
" air, and all but cries out that the cup may pass 
" away, that he might truly shew that he was a 
" man ; but remembering also the reason for which 
" he was sent, he cries out, Father, not my will : 
" the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak*" See 
note at p. 253. 

Since the publication of the first edition of this 
work, some new fragments of Hippolytus have been 
brought to light by Angelo Maio, in his Scriptorum 
Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codd. &c. Vol. 
I. p. 161, &c. They are taken from a Catena of com- 
mentators upon Daniel: and on those words, The 
form of the fourth is like the Son of God, iii. 25. 
Hippolytus says, " The scripture shewed beforehand, 
" that the Gentiles were afterwards to know him in 
" the flesh, whom Nebuchadnezzar had long before 
" seen without flesh and recognised in the furnace, 
" and acknowledged him to be the Son of God?." 
Commenting upon Dan. vii. 18. he speaks of the 
time arriving, " that the heavenly king may be 
" shewn openly to all, no longer seen partially as in a 
" vision, nor revealed in a pillar of a cloud on the 



rivet elXycpivai, fv& (poevrj hvo itpoa- 
aitoov [tea-lrqi;. 

x "OXoq rjv <ko.<ti kou iravrayov, 
yejAicrccq 8e to ttocv irpoq itda-aq Tccq 
aepiovq c\pyjxq yvpvoq avTomehucraTO, 
kou npoq oXlyov j3oa notpeXOeTv to 7to- 
rripiov, 'Iva &€<£ij aXyOaq on kou av- 
Qpawoc vjv' [Aefjs.vsi[j<.evo<; Se kou S<o ait- 
€<TTuhrj, kou (3o$, IlaTep, (ay) to 6e- 



XvjjWa \kov' to jwev nzvevya TrpoOvfAOVt 
rj Se <rap% a&Oevrjq. 

y Tlpooczeheiiiev rj ypacpr], on //.eA- 
X^crovai tcc e8vrj tovtov evcrapKOV eiti- 
yivuxTKeiv, ov itdXou aaapKOV l§uv 
eVe-yvw iv Kotu.lva o ^u^ov^ohovoa-op, 
kou vlov Geov elvou tovtov obpoXo- 
yyjcrev. p. 1 88. 

T 4 



280 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" top of a mountain, but with power and angelic 
" hosts, God in the flesh, and man the Son of God 
" and Son of man, coming from heaven to the world 
" as judge 7 ." 

Origen. A. D. 240. 
Origen was born in Egypt about the year 185, and 
before he attained his seventeenth year, his father 
Leonides suffered martyrdom. He was a scholar of 
Clement of Alexandria, and we are also informed 
that he had been a hearer of Hippolytus. At the 
age of eighteen he was himself appointed to preside 
in the catechetical school of Alexandria, and Diony- 
sius, who was afterwards bishop of that see, was one 
of his pupils. He was not ordained till the year 
228, when he was forty-three years of age. In 231 
he left Alexandria and went to Caesarea, where he 
was received with great attention and admiration. 
The Homilies which passed under his name amount- 
ed to a thousand : and the number is more astonish- 
ing, because he did not suffer his discourses to be 
taken down in writing till he was sixty years of age. 
It was about this time that he composed his work 
against Celsus, which is one of the soberest and most 
valuable of all his writings, and has come down to 
us entire. All his works together are said to have 
amounted to the incredible number of 6000 volumes 3 ; 
but we are probably to understand by volumes the 
books or parts into which his works were divided. 
It was either his unwearied labour in reading and 
composing, or the great strength of his reasoning, 

7 ■ ak\u ptTa $vvdy.€av koi Voi.I. p. £9 1 . i^aKicr^iXioic (3i(3Xav$, 

o-rpccTiZi/ ayye'kiKcov ev<rapi<o$ Seoq but Epiphanius seems uncertain 

k. t. X. p. 206. whether the number was cor- 

a Epiphan. Hser. LXIV. 63. rect. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



281 



which gained him the title of Adamantius, or In- 
vincible. He is said to have suffered considerably 
in the Decian persecution in 250, and to have died 
at Tyre in the year 255 at the age of seventy. 

Of his numerous works, not many have come 
down to us in their original language. Some 
which have perished are preserved in a Latin trans- 
lation executed by Rufinus towards the end of the 
fourth century : but the accuracy and fidelity of 
these translations have been questioned, and appa- 
rently not without reason. 

It is not the object of the present work to enter 
into a minute investigation of Origen's tenets. Both 
in ancient and modern times he has had many ac- 
cusers and defenders : not only has he been charged 
with holding visionary and unfounded opinions con- 
cerning the preexistence of the soul, the resurrection 
of the body, the nature of angels, &c. &c. &c. but 
his faith concerning the Trinity, and the divinity of 
the Son, has often been called in question ; and the 
Arians have laid claim to the high authority of Ori- 
gen as supporting their own doctrines. If Origen 
was really heterodox upon these fundamental articles 
of Christianity, it is scarcely possible, but that some 
traces of it would be found in his existing writings. 
I can only say, that after a careful perusal of all of 
them, I cannot point out any passage, which when 
taken in conjunction with the tenor of his writings 
would lead me to conclude, that Origen was an 
Arian. 

We must remember, that he wrote before the 
great controversies concerning the Trinity had dis- 
tracted the Christian church. The curious and pre- 
sumptuous speculations of the unlearned or unstable 



282 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



had not yet caused the meanings of words to be de- 
fined with that scrupulous precision, which the sub- 
tlety of opposing sects afterwards made necessary : 
and Origen, in his voluminous writings, many of 
which, be it remembered, were taken down from his 
own copious and unpremeditated delivery, may have 
used terms in a sense, which the catholic church a 
few years afterwards excluded them from bearing, 
and anathematized as heterodox. But we must 
judge of Origen, as of every author, from the whole 
tenor of his writings, and not from particular parts 
of them, or from single words, which have changed 
their meaning. Thus Origen may have fully be- 
lieved in the consubstantiality of the Son, and in his 
eternal coexistence with the Father; and yet he 
may have spoken of the Son as in some sense infe- 
rior to the Father ; a doctrine, which, as bishop Bull 
has plainly and unanswerably shewn, has been held 
by the catholic church from the days of the apostles 
to our own. 

But it is not fair to argue, because Origen speaks 
of the Son as inferior to the Father, that he there- 
fore believed him to be created, or that he did not 
believe him to have existed from all eternity. We 
must take Origen's doctrine in Origen's own words ; 
and if any of his expressions seem opposed to each 
other and incompatible, we must see which of them 
contains a sense, which cannot be mistaken ; and if 
one of them admits of different interpretations, we 
must decide which is correct by observing the mean- 
ing of the other expression which is simple and un- 
equivocal. Thus if Origen says that the Son was 
begotten of the Father, we must see that when he 
says he was produced, (yewrrog,) he did not mean that 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



283 



he was created, like the objects of this material 
world, but that he derived his origin from the Fa- 
ther; a doctrine, which is perfectly scriptural and 
sound. 

So also when we find him saying that the Son is 
of one substance with the Father, and that he is by 
nature very and eternal God, we must see that any 
expression, which marks the inferiority of the Son, 
cannot mean an inferiority of nature. If we try the 
tenets of Origen by this test, i. e. if we make his ex- 
pressions, which admit of no doubt, explain those 
which may receive two interpretations, I have no 
hesitation in saying, that we shall have no reason 
whatever for questioning his orthodoxy. Upon this 
subject I have satisfaction in fully subscribing to the 
sentiments of bishop Bull : not as presuming to have 
come to my conclusion by an equal acquaintance 
with the subject, but venturing to express my own 
conviction with more confidence,, when I find that 
the extensive reading and judicious reflection of that 
great man led him to pronounce the same favourable 
opinion concerning this calumniated Father. See 
BullDefens. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 22. b 

Having said this, I must explain myself as refer- 
ring only to the doctrine which Origen held con- 
cerning the Trinity, and the divinity of the Son. 
His opinions upon other subjects have no connection 
with the present discussion. 

Of all the works which Origen wrote, there were 
none which brought upon him more abuse for the 

b See also Waterland, IV. tury, had not disapproved of 

p. 322, &c. where he shews Origen's doctrine concerning 

that the most learned writers, the Trinity, 
till the end of the fourth cen- 



284 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



heterodox notions which they contained, than the 
treatise De Principiis c . It was said particularly 
to convey blasphemous opinions concerning the se- 
cond and third persons of the Trinity. Didymus d 
defended Origen from these charges, and contended 
that the doctrines contained in this treatise differed 
entirely from the Arian notions. Rufinus also de- 
fended Origen, but in a different way : he acknow- 
ledged the existence of the offensive passages, but 
contended that they were interpolations. 

The original work was written before the year 
231, when Origen left Alexandria 8 , and has long 
since perished, except a few fragments, which have 
been preserved by later writers. In the year 398, 
Rufinus undertook to translate the whole into La- 
tin ; and his version has come down to us entire. 
.But it seems quite certain, that we must not receive 
it as giving us the genuine sentiments of Origen. 
Rufinus himself says in his preface, that if he found 
any thing which contradicted the opinions expressed 
by Origen in other works, he did not preserve it ; 
and particularly, if he met with any thing which 
opposed what Origen had written elsewhere con- 
cerning the Trinity, he omitted it as spurious : or if 
the concise manner of Origen had made any of his 
expressions obscure, they were rendered plainer in 
the translation by the addition of passages taken 
from other works of the author himself : but Rufinus 
asserts, that he introduced nothing of his own. 

c Tlepl apx^v. Rufinus trans- 94. Justinian. Imp. Epist. ad 

lates this title, De Principiis vel Menam. 

de Principatibiis, v. Photius cod. d V. Hieron. Epist. 41. et ad 

8. Pamphyl. Apol. Hieron. E- fin. II. adv. Rufin. 

pist. 38, 40. adv. Rufin. epist. e Euseb. H. E. VI. 24. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



285 



Jerom positively denies this latter statement, and 
mentions instances where Rufinus had not only 
softened down the offensive doctrines of Origen, but 
had actually interpolated sentiments of his own. 

The Latin translation of Rufinus certainly con- 
tains many passages, which directly contradict the 
Arian doctrines : and though there are some expres- 
sions, which seem rather to lower the divinity of 
the Son, they may perhaps be all explained so as to 
agree with the catholic tenets. This very circum- 
stance confirms the charge brought by Jerom against 
Rufinus, that he suppressed many passages which 
would have been thought heretical : for it can hardly 
be doubted, after the evidence which has been ad- 
duced, but that Origen's own work did contain ex- 
pressions which appeared not to be orthodox. To 
which it may be added, that wherever any frag- 
ments of the original Greek have been preserved, 
they differ considerably from the version of Rufinus, 
the latter being much more diffuse. 

Jerom himself also made a translation of the whole 
work, and he tells us that it was strictly literal, 
preserving even the heretical opinions of Origen. 
This too, whatever portions of it have been pre- 
served, differs very much from the version of Ru- 
finus. 

This being the case, it is not safe to quote any 
passage from the Latin translation , as supporting 
the doctrine which I am endeavouring to establish. 
I shall therefore only mention, that such passages 
may be found in praef. ad lib. I. §. 4. p. 48. I. 1. 8. 
p. 53. I. 2. 1. p. 53. ib. §. 2. ib. §. 3. ib. §. 9. p. 57. 
ib. §. 10. p. 58. I. 3. 1. p. 60. II. 6. 1, % 3, 6. 
p. 89, &c. and at III. 2. 4. p. 140. St. Paul's words 



286 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



Kara ryjg yvucrew tov ®eov (2 Cor. x. 5.) are translated, 
adversus scientiam Christi. 

There are however two passages, which have 
been preserved in the original Greek, which seem 
decidedly to support the divinity of Christ. 

177- Origenis de Principiis, 1. IV. c. 1. §« 2. 
vol. I. p. 158. 

Having mentioned some passages in which Christ 
foretold the persecutions, which the Christians would 
meet with, he says, 66 At the time perhaps it was 
" natural to think, that he spoke at random when he 
" uttered these sayings, and that they were not 
" true ; but when the things, which were spoken 
" with such authority, came to pass, they prove 
" that God truly took our nature upon Him, and 
" delivered doctrines of salvation to men f ." 

178. Origenis de Princip. 1. IV. c. ult. 28. 
vol. I. p. 189, 90. 

" It is time to recapitulate concerning the Father 
< " and Son and Holy Ghost, and to go over a few 

" things which were then omitted : concerning the 
66 Father, that being incapable of division and parti- 
" tion he is yet Father of a Son, not emitting him, 
" as some think : for if the Son is an emission of the 
" Father, and if the Father begets of himself like 
" the generation of animals, it follows that both He, 
" who emits, and he, who is emitted, is corporeal s" 
This last passage will at least shew, that Origen 

f — ore e/c/3e/3>j/ce ra aera, SieljeXOeTv, nept Tlarpoq, &q ahaipe- 

Toa-avryq e^ovaiaq elpvj^eva, i[A(pa£vei roq uv koa a\xepiaroq vlov ylverai 

Seov ScXyOaq ivavOpunrjo-avra <ruTq- Ylarvjp, ov itpofiaXav avrov, uq o\ov- 

pta "hoy^ara roiq avOpamoiq napa^e- rat riveq' el yap TtpofioXf] e<rrtv 6 

SuKevai vloq rov llarpoq, Ka) yevvq, fxev e£ 

g "£lpa iiravaXa[36vra itep) Ha- avrov oitoia ra rav tpuv yevv/jfiara, 

rpoq kou vlov Ka\ dylov Ylvev^aroq avdyKf] aoj^a elvai rov itpoftaXXovra 

IXiya. rav rore TcapaXeXei^f/.evcov kou rov Ttpo^efiXvjy.evov. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



287 



could not have conceived Christ to have been a mere 
man : he certainly held that the Son was begotten 
of the Father, not that he was a man adopted by- 
God: and when he mentions the corporeal nature 
of Christ as a conclusion which proved the absurdity 
of the reasoning which led to it, he must have 
thought that the true nature of Christ was spiritual. 
Either of these notions must lead to the divinity of 
Christ. 

179- Origenis Exhortatio ad Martyrium, §. 9- 
vol. I. p. 280. 
Origen wrote this treatise during the persecution 
of Maximus ; and his object was to excite his bre- 
thren to stand firm to the gospel, even if they were 
persecuted unto death. In the following passage he 
reminds them of the threats which God had given of 
His jealous anger against idolatry, and says, " Like 
" as a husband urging his wife to live discreetly, 
" devoting herself entirely to her husband, and in 
" every way guarding against submitting herself to 
" any one else except her husband, although he is a 
66 sensible man, yet would shew jealousy, using such 
« a semblance like a medicine towards his wife : so 
" our legislator, especially if he seem to be the first- 
" born of every creature, says to the soul, which is 
" his wife, that he is a jealous God, drawing off his 
" hearers from all fornication with devils and those 
" who are thought to be gods ; and like God when 
" thus jealous, says of those who go after any strange 
" gods whatsoever, They have moved me to jea- 
" lousy with that which is not God" &c. (Deut. 
xxxii. 21 h .) 

h — ovtco 6 yjf^ar'iCpV) kou pa- vou itda-fiq KTicreco^ (py]<r) npo<; rv\v 



288 



ORIGEN, A D. 240. 



This passage is remarkable, as identifying the Son 
with the Father : it expressly calls the former God ; 
and represents him as uttering words, which were 
evidently spoken by God the Father. If Christ were 
a mere man, it would not have been his office, after 
his death, to prevent idolatry : on the contrary, the 
worship of Christ would itself have been an aban- 
donment of the one true God. 

180. Origenis Exhort, ad Mart. 14. 

vol. I. p. 283. 
It may be mentioned, that at Matt. xix. 28. in- 
stead of, " When the Son of man shall sit in the 
" throne," &c. Origen reads, " When God shall sit." 
Since no MS. has this reading, it is probable 
that Origen quoted from memory. But the substi- 
tuted word would hardly have presented itself to 
Origen, if he had not been in the habit of con- 
sidering the terms Son of man and God as synony- 
mous. 

181. Origenis contra C el sum, 1. 1. 56. 

vol. I. p. 371. 
There is no need in this place to give any account 
of Origen's celebrated work against Celsus, except 
that some writers have supposed it to have been 
composed in the year 243, and others a few years 
later. Neither does the first quotation which I make 
from it require any introduction or comment. " It 
" has escaped Celsus and his friend the Jew, and all 
" who do not believe in Jesus, that the prophecies 
" speak of two advents of Christ : the first, par- 
". taking of human feelings and humble, that Christ 



<itu<r r /]c, tv}$ npoi; to, tamoi/tcc itopvelaq 
Kai rove, vofAityfAevovi; ehat Geovc acpi- 
cttccc, revs txKpoauevovq. Koc\ coq ®eot; 



7T0T6 0Tt1<T6l> @€WV fcTepWV eK7C€7t0pi€V' 

Korav, Avro) irape^Xaaau k. t. A. 



ORXGEN, A.D. 240. 



289 



" being with men might teach the way which leads 

" to God The other, glorious and merely divine, 

" having nothing of human feelings mixed with the 
" divinity. To quote these prophecies would be 
" tedious, and for the present that passage from the 

" 45th Psalm is sufficient in which he is plainly 

" declared to be God in these words, Grace is poured 
" into thy lips, therefore God hath blessed thee for 
" ever, &c. &c. ver. 2 — 5. and attend carefully to 
" what follows, where he is called God. For he 
" says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever : 
" the sceptre of thy kingdom, &c. 6, 7. and observe, 
" that the prophet addressing God, whose throne is 
" for ever and ever, and the sceptre of his kingdom 
" a sceptre of righteousness, this God, he says, was 

"anointed by God, who was his God 1 re- 

" member pressing the Jew, who was thought clever, 
" very hard by this passage ; and being perplexed 
" by it, he said, as might be expected from his Jew- 
" ish notions, that the words, Thy throne, O God, 
" is for ever and ever : the sceptre, &c. were ad- 
" dressed to the God of the universe ; and the other 
u words, Thou hast loved righteousness and hated 
" iniquity, therefore, &c. to Christ i ." 
182. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. 1. $. 60. vol. I. p. 375. 
I have already given at p. 83. the first part of the 



1 "EXaOe 8e tov KeXaov, Ka) tov 
nap avTu 'lovdaTov, Kai irdvTaq oaoi 
tS> 'I'/j&ov yJrj TtenuTTevKxtTiV, ort at 
Tipocp'/jTtTat dvo Xiyovaiv thai raq 
Xpicrrov enid-rj^laq' rrjv npoTtpav 
dvOpwnoitaOea-repav Kai raiteivorepav, 
I'va <rvv dvQpunotq ccv o XpitTToq, di- 
dd^T) tvjv (pepcvcrav itpoq ®eov odov, 
Kai |U,7jSevi toov iv ra /3;o? tZv dvOpa- 
ncev d-noXoylaq KaraX'mri tgtcov, aq 
ovk iyvooKoa-t nep) rvjq taopivqq Kpi- 



<reuq. t\v he irepav evdo^ov Ka) (aovov 
Qeiorepav, ovdev enn:e'KXey(j.evov rr\ 
6eioT'/]Ti eyjzvcrav dv8pccitOTia6eq. 
paQeaQai Se tea) raq Ttpoty-qreiaq, icoXv 
dv ely' apKei 8' ini rov ivapovToq to 
duo tov TecrcrapaKOcrTov Ka) rerdprov 

ipaXfAOv evBa Kai ®eoq dvyyo- 

pevrai aa(paq did tovtcov, 'E£e%u8'/i 
k. t. X. Ttpoa-y^eq 8' iiti^eXcvq Toiq e^qq, 
ev8a ®eoq eipyTai, 'O Opovoq k. t. X. 



290 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



following quotation concerning the offerings of the 
wise men : " They came bringing presents, which, 
" if I may so say, they offered as symbolical to one 
" who was compounded of God and mortal man ; 
<£ gold, as to a king, myrrh as to one who was to 
" die ; and incense, as to God : they offered these, 
" when they learnt the place of his birth : but since 
" the incarnate Saviour of mankind, who was supe- 
" rior to the angels, that assist men, was God, an 
" angel repaid the piety of the wise men in worship- 
" ping Jesus, by warning them k &c." 

183. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. 1. 66. vol. I. p. 380. 
We may form some opinion as to what was the 

received doctrine concerning Christ's divinity in 
those days, by observing what Celsus himself under- 
stood of the Christian tenets : and it does not ad- 
mit of a doubt, but that Celsus was fully persuaded 
that the Christians looked upon Christ as God. 
The passages which Origen quotes from Celsus, and 
which prove this, need not be transcribed at length ; 
and some of them will be found in the quotations 
which follow. They occur in lib. I. 66. II. §. 9, 
18, 20. IV. §. 3. VII. §. 53. In all these pas- 
sages, and in many more, Celsus speaks of Christ 
as the God of the Christians : nor was it this doc- 
trine, which was to him a stumblingblock : it was 
the human sufferings of God which he professed 
himself unable to believe. 

184. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. 1. §. 66. vol. I. p. 380. 
Celsus had objected, that the flight into Egypt 

was unworthy of a God, who ought to have been 
able to confound his enemies without flying from 

k ScXX' ewe* Seoq vjv, o vnep ivvndp^av ararvjp rov ykvovc, rav av- 

rovq fio'/iQovvTaq av^pdmoic, ayyeXovt; Opoonuv, ayyeXot; k. t. X. 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



291 



them. Origen shews that this flight was not incon- 
sistent with the divinity of Christ, and observes, "We 
u who believe Jesus, who says himself concerning 
" his divinity, / am the way, and the truth, and the 

(< life, (John xiv. 6.) and concerning his being 

" in a human body. Now ye seek to kill me, a man 
" that hath told you the truth, (John viii. 40.) we 
" say, that he was something compound V At the 
end of the section he says, " Any very extraordinary 
" and overpowering assistance operating in his be- 
" half would not have furthered his wish to shew as 
" a man approved by God, that he had something 
" divine in the visible man, which was properly the 
" Son of God, God the Word, the Power of God 
" and Wisdom of God, which was called Christ. 
" But it is not time now to treat of the compound 
" nature, and of the parts, of which Jesus, who be- 
" came a man, was composed 111 ." 
185. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. I. §. 68. vol. I. p. 383. 

Celsus being unable to deny the miracles of Je- 
sus acknowledged them as facts, but attributed the 
working of them to magic. Origen refutes this, and 
principally by pointing out that all the miracles of 
Jesus were worked for the purpose of leading men 
to virtue and holiness. " But if the life of Jesus 
" was of this character, how could any one with 
" reason compare it to the profession of jugglers, and 

1 'HpeTq avrZ Tturrevovreq 'frj- veq, ovk vjv ^p'^aifxov ra (3ovM<r6at 

gov Trept [/,ev rr,q iv avra Seiorvjroq avrov hitd^at aq avQpamov [/.aprvpov- 

Aeyovri, 'Eyo) k. r. A. icep) Se rov pevov vno rov @eov e%eiv rt Oeiorepov 

ort iv avBpunivcp (reofAari rjv, ravra iv rZ ^Xeico^eva dvdpccTta' oirep tjv o 

(pdvKOvri, NSv t^reire k. r. A. Kvplaq vloq @eov, @eoq Aoyoq, Seov 

<rvv6erov n %pyj[^d (papev avrov ye- tvva^iq koi ®eov <ro(pia, 6 KaAovpe- 

yovevai. voq Xpia-roq. Ov Kaipoq he vvv irep) 

m To yap irdvv Trapdho^ov rrjq etc- rov avvBerov, Ka) t ? £ av crvveKeiro o 

avrov (3o'/)6elaq, Ka) ewt itXeov iy.(pa- ivavOpanvjcaq 'l^GOvq, hi^y^aaa-8ai. 

IT 2 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" not believe, according to the promise of his being 
" God, that he appeared in a human body for the 
" benefit of mankind n ?" 

186. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II. 8. vol. I. p. 391. 
" Celsus says, that this charge is brought against 

" the Jews by those who believe in Christ, that they 
" do not believe in Jesus as God. I have explained 
" myself upon this point before, where I shewed 
" how we conceive him to be God, and in what 
" sense we call him man °." It is clear from these 
words, that the idea entertained of Christ was that 
he was God : He was called man only Kara n, in 
some particular sense. 

187. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II. 9. vol. I. p. 392. 
Celsus objected the disgrace of Jesus being seized 

by officers, and deserted by his disciples. " To 
" this we say, that neither do we suppose that the 
" body of Jesus, which could then be seen and felt, 
" was God. But why do I say the body ? Neither 
" was his soul : concerning which he said, My soul 
" is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, (Matt. 
" xxvi. 38.) But like as in the religion of the Jews, 
6( he that said, / am the Lord, the God of all flesh, 
" (Jer. xxxii. 27.) and before me there was no God, 
66 neither shall there be after me, (Isaiah xliii. 10.) 
" is believed to be God, who used the soul and body 
" of the prophet as an instrument so with us 



n Et Se roiovTOc, vjv 6 rov 'lyo-ov 
/3/o£, naq evAoyaq av riq avrov rrj 
npoaipeaei rav yoyruv napafidXoi, 
Ka\ jxr) Kar iizayyeklav rov @eov 
dvai, KHrrevoi iv avOpccnivto (pavevra 
(Talari in evepye&ia rov ykvovq 
TjjAuv ; 

° 8e rovro eyKXypa ano rav 



dq rov Xp«7Tov iticrrevovroov Tcpoad- 
yeaOai 'lovdafoiq, eVet ^ur\ Tceitiarrev- 
Kacriv &q elq ®eov rov 'Iyjq-ovv. Ka) 
nepi rovrov §' iv roTq avcorepco itpo- 
aneXoyqa-dpeOa, heiKvvvreq apa, icaq 
[A,ev Seov avrov voovpev, Kara ri 
avOpanov Xeyopev. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



293 



t God the Word, and Son of the God of the uni- 
iC verse, said in Jesus, / am the way, and the truth, 
" and the life, (John xiv. 6.) and I am the door, &c. 

" (x. 7.) Now we charge the Jews with not con- 

" sidering him as God, who in many places is spoken 
" of by the prophets as being the mighty Power and 
" God, like the God of the universe and Father p. 
" For we say, that in the creation as related by 
f Moses, the Father gave command to him, when 
" He said, Let there be light, and let there be a 

"firmament, &c. and that He said to him, Let 

" us make man after our image and likeness : and 
" that the Son having received the command did 
" whatever his Father commanded him V 



p These words are translated 
secundo post rerum omnium 
Deum et Patrem loco Deum 
esse. But this is not the pro- 
per signification of Kara. If 
Origen had called Jesus @eov 

{/.era, rov rav oXav Geov, the trans- 
lation might have been right : 
and we find this expression at 
p. 789. where, speaking of an- 
gels or daemons, he says, aXXovq 
rivdq (/.era rov in) naai <9eoV but 

speaking of the Son, he says, 

p. 75 1 • * K T0 ^ BpqcrKeveiv rji^ccq [/.era, 

TOV &60V rOV VtOV aVTOV K. T. X. 

©eos Kara rov rav oXcov Qeov 
can only mean God after the 
pattern of the God of the uni- 
verse ; i. e. God in the same 
sense and meaning of the word, 
as dvBpcoirov icaff rii/.aq Bvt\rov means 
a mortal man like ourselves, 
Dionys. Alex. p. 237. and ryq 

KaQ* 'f\\A,ac, dvBpcoirivyjt; (pvcreat; means 

the human nature like our own, 
Melito (Rel. Sacr. I. p. 115.) 

and /ca0' Tj/xas ahriQac, ywopevoq 



avBpomoq, which Hippolytus says 
of our Saviour, (I. p. 226.) 
means, that he was really born 
and became a man like our- 
selves : and Origen himself 
speaks of Christ, ISioitoiovpevoq ra 

Kad' %v e'tXycpev avBpanov irdB'q, mak- 
ing those sufferings his own 
which belonged to the human 
nature that he had assumed, 
N°. 232. below. 

^ Upog ravra Se (p'fj<rGij,ev, on oCtf 
y[A€i<; vno\a[A(3dvo[Aev ro fiXenofAevov 
Tore Kai alcrBrjrov rov 'I^cou crapa 
elvai @eov' Kai rl Xeya ro crSfxa ; 
dXX' ovde rrjv ipvyjrjV, itefi XeXe- 
Krai to, TleplXvnoq io-riv k. r. X. 

ovrco KaB^ v\y.a<; o Aoyoq ®eoq, 
Kal ®€ov rav oXav vfb$, eXeyev 
iv ra 'I^croS to, 'E<y« ely.i k. r. X. 
''EyKaXov^ev ovv 'lov'Saiotq rovrov [ayj 
vof/,io-a<Ti ®eov, viro rav irpoiprjrav 
'EoXXayjiv ^[/.aprvpyjiAevov ac, f/,eya- 
XrjV ovra fivvapiv, Kai &eov Kara, rov 
ray oXav Seov Ka) itarep.%. Tovrco 
yap (papev iv ttj Kara Ma<rea ko<j- 
fAOiroii'a itpoardrrovra rov ttarepa 

U 3 



294 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



Let us believe, if we please, that Origen lowered 
the divinity of the Son by making him inferior to 
the Father ; (a charge which has often been brought 
against Origen ;) but still we cannot put aside the 
fact, that he believed the Son to have been present 
with his Father, when He created the world : a 
doctrine which is totally incompatible with any mo- 
dification of the Unitarian creed, which conceives 
Jesus to have had no existence before he was born 
at Bethlehem. 

188. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II. §. 31. vol. I. p. 413. 
In the following passage he refers to the latter 

part of the last quotation, " In which it was proved, 
" that the firstborn of evert/ creature * took upon 
" him a human body and soul ; and that God gave 
" commands concerning such and such things in the 
" world, and they were created ; and that he who re- 
" ceived the command was God and the Word r ." 

189. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II. 44. vol. I. p. 420. 
Celsus had mentioned the disgrace of Jesus being 

crucified together with acknowledged criminals : 
and Origen, in the notice which he takes of this re- 
mark, alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah liii. 1 2. and 
says, that " God was numbered with transgressors s ." 

190. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II. 50. vol. I. p. 424. 
At 2 Thess. ii. 8. we read, And then shall that 

wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord (o Kvpio$) 
shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and 
shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. 



elpyKevoik to, Tev/jd^ra <paq k. t. A. 
•npocnayfiivTa. §e tgv Aoyov TztTtoivj- 
Kevai navrcc oaot 6 nctTrjp avra iv- 
€Te/AaTo. 

r — — iv QIC, Sc,Tr€§€iKVVTQ o Ttaafiq 

ktI<J€cc<; npoToroKoq, avetA^aq aZ- 



[xcc kou ipv%rjv avOpa^ivrjV' kou oti o 
®eog evereiKaro itep) twv toctovtuv 
iv k6(T[/.g>, kou eKricrOvj' kou oti q ttjv 
ivTOAYjv Xocj3cov 6 ®eo$ Koyoq '\v. 

s 1 erret ^tcc avojAuv iXoyi- 

cr6v] o ®€o's. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



295 



There can be no doubt that the Lord in this place 
means Jesus Christ, because there is allusion to his 
second coming. Many MSS. read Kvpiog 6 'tyaovg, 
the Lord Jesus, and the Unitarians evidently un- 
derstand it so, for they admit this reading into the 
text *. Origen quotes, " Whom the Lord God will 
" consume" ov Kvpiog o Seog avekei, which he seems to 
have done from memory : but he would not have 
done SO; (as I have observed before in similar in- 
stances,) if he had not considered the Lord Jesus 
and the Lord God to be identical expressions. 
191. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II. ult. vol. I. p. 446. 

The question contained in the latter part of this 
quotation I leave to be answered by those whom it 
may concern. Celsus had finished his arguments by 
saying of Jesus, " He was therefore a man, and 
" such a man as the truth declares him to be, and 
" reason proves." To which Origen replies, " But 
" I know not whether a man, if he attempted to 
" spread over the whole world his own religion and 
" doctrine, could do what he wished without God, 
" and prevail over all, who opposed the spreading 
" of his doctrine, both kings and governors, and the 
" Roman senate, and the rulers and people of every 
" country. And how could the human nature, if it 
" had nothing superior in it, convert such a vast 
" multitude u ?" 

1 Whom the Lord Jesus will to the coming of Antichrist. 

consume he. Improved Version. Hippolytus reads, K^o$ 'I^o-oS?. 

Irenseus once reads, Dominus vol. I. p. 31. 

Jesus ChristUS, p. 182. and he 11 Owe ol§a $e, el avOpoonoq, ro\~ 

observes the repetition of itccp- y^a-ac, iTTianeTpcu navvi TTj oikov lAMy 

ova-la, in this passage, as refer- r^v k«t 5 uvtov Oeooefieiav Kai Si- 
ring first to the coming of Soca-KaXtav, Mvarcci aOeei noiyjc-cci. o 

Christ, and immediately after fiovXeTcu, k. t. X. Ila>$ §e kou av- 

u 4 



296 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



192. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. III. 29. vol. I. 
p. 465, 66. 

" I would say of Jesus, that it was expedient for 
" mankind to receive him as Son of God, God com- 
" ing in a human soul and body x ." 
193. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. III. 31. vol. I. p. 467. 

Having observed that Christianity made the 
churches more pure than any heathen assembly, 
and the heads of the churches more moral than 
persons of authority among the heathen, he says, 
" But if this be so, why is it not reasonable to con- 
" ceive of Jesus, who has been able to establish this, 
" that there was no common divinity in him ?" and 
he proceeds to contrast him with such persons as 
Aristeas and Abaris, who were worshipped as gods. 

We must certainly understand the words no com- 
7H071 divinity, ov^ y Tvyovaa QeiOTYis, in the same sense 
which Celsus, i. e. a learned heathen, would have 
attached to them : and if we suppose the argument 
reversed, if Celsus had said, that Jesus was a mere 
man, but Jupiter and Apollo were gods, in whom 
was no common divinity, we could only have under- 
stood him to mean, that Jupiter and Apollo were 
really gods, not men who were called gods, but pos- 
sessing a real inherent divinity. 

194. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. III. 37. vol. I. 
p. 471, 72. 

Origen observes, that many of the gods of the 
heathen were profligate in character, and recently 
admitted into heaven ; and yet that they were 



Qpaicov (pvuiq, jWTjSev 'iy^ovaa KpeTrrov 
iv airy, hvvarai roo-ovrov inHnpi- 
xpai irXy]6 } oq ; 

x Hepi Se tov 'Ivjaov ewotfAev ay, 



iirei <TV[A,(pepov v\v ra ruv avOpcoitcov 
yevei itapade^acrOat avrov uq viov 
®eov, @eov iXyXvOora iv avOpccnlvrt 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



297 



worshipped with the same honours that were paid 
to Jupiter and Apollo. " But the Christians, who 
" have learnt that their eternal life consists in 
" knowing the only true God, who is over all, and 
" Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, (John xvii. 3.) 
" who have learnt that all the gods of the heathen 
" are voracious daemons, hovering about sacrifices, 

" &c. and that the divine and holy angels of 

" God are of a different nature and principle from 
" all the spirits that are upon earth, will not endure 
" a comparison to be instituted between them and 

" Apollo or Jupiter There is much to be said 

" also concerning the heavenly angels, and con- 
" cerning those who are opposed to the truth, but 
" who have been deceived, and by deceit proclaim 
" themselves to be gods, or angels of God, or good 

" daemons and because such notions can never 

" be thoroughly and accurately proved, it was 
" thought safe that man should entrust himself to 
" no one as thinking him a God, except only Jesus 
" Christ, who is over all as a governor, who has 
" seen into these mysteries, and delivered them to 
" a few r." 

195. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. III. 41. vol. I. 
p. 473,74. 

" But since Celsus objects to us, I know not how 
" often, concerning Jesus, that we consider him a 
" God, though consisting of a mortal body, and that 
" in this we think we act piously, it is superfluous 
" to say any more upon this point ; for much has 
" been said above. However let the objectors know, 



y a(T(paA€t; ivoy/iG-d'/j ro /x.77- 

Sevt eavTOV iyivio-revo-ai av8pcoi:oy 
wtcc @ea>, ttXvjv y.wov rov iiri 



itaciv diair'/jrovy rcc (3a6vrarcc 
rccvrcc kou Oeap'ficccyzoq kou oKlyoiq 
Tzctpahovroi;, lr^ov 'Kpxrrov. 



298 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" that he who we think and are persuaded was from 
" the beginning God and the Son of God, the same 
" is the very Word, and very Wisdom, and very 
" Truth : and we say, that his mortal body, and the 
" human soul in it, not only by a communication 
" with him, but by an union and intimate mixture, 
" has been advanced to the highest honours, and by 
" partaking of his divinity passed into God z ." 
196. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. IV. §. 5. vol. I. 
p. 504, 505. 

" Afterwards the most noble Celsus brings a diffi- 
" culty against us, which he got, I know not from 
" whence ; because we say, that God himself comes 
" down to men : and he thinks it a consequence of 
" this, that He must leave His own seat. For he is 
" not acquainted with the power of God, and that 
" the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world ; and that 
" which contain eth all things hath knowledge of 
" the voice. (Wisdom i. 7.) Nor can he understand, 
" Do not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord. 
" (Jer. xxiii. 24.) Nor does he see, that according 
" to the Christian doctrine, In Him we all live and 
" move and have our being, (Acts xvii. 28.) as Paul 
" said in his address to the Athenians. If therefore 



z 5 E7re< iyKaXeT vjfuv, ovk ot8' 
Tjdrj oitocraKu;, irep) rov 'lyjcrov, on e/c 
Oy/jTOv o-cay.aTOt; ovra ®eov vo^i^o^ev, 
kou iv tqvtco ocria §p$v boKovj^ev, 
nvepicra-ov [*.ev to en Ttpoq tovto 'Ke~ 
yeiv' itXeiova yccp iv Tolq avuTepa 
XeXeKrai. "Opvq 'liTTcccrav ol iy- 
KahovvTeq, oti ov pev vo^i%o^ev kou 
Treireio-fAeQa, apy^Bev elvai &eov kou 
vlov Qeovj oiiToq o avroXoyoq icrl kou 
tj a.vTQ(TO(pta kou Yj avToaXrfieia' to 

$V'/jT0V aVTOV (TafACt, KOU TVjV av- 



BpccTvlv/jV iv avrcS ipvyfyv, T77 Trpoq 

iKiiVOV OV [AOVOV KOlVUVtOC, aXKa KOU 

evacre: kou avoi.Kpa.o-ei, to. [/.eyicrTa, 
cpapev Kpoo-eiXycpevai, kou t%<; ckcivov 
OeiorrjToq KeKOivav/jKOToi elg &eov (A€- 

TafSePyKevai. Bishop Bull ob- 
serves, that the expressions av- 
ToXoyoq, avToo~o(pla, &c. are bor- 
rowed from the works of Plato, 

who speaks of the avToayaOov. 

Defens. II. 9. 6. vid. Athanas. c. 
Gent. 46. vol. I. p. 46. 



ORIGEN, A.D.240. 



299 



" the God of the universe should come down by His 
" own power together with Jesus into the life of 
" man, and if the Word, who was in the beginning 
" with God, being himself also God, should come to 
" us, He is not dethroned, nor does He leave His 

" own seat but the power and divinity of God 

" travels where it pleases, and wherever it finds a 
" seat; since God does not change His place, nor 
<e leave His throne empty and fill another a ." 

It is plain from the argument, as well as from 
the quotations, that when Origen calls Christ God, 
he means the most high God who fills all space. 

197. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. IV. ad fin. vol. I. 
p. 577. 

He ends the fourth book with these words, " May 
" God grant by His Son, who is God the Word and 
" Wisdom and Truth and Righteousness, and what- 
" ever the holy scriptures say of his divinity, that 
" we may begin the fifth volume, to the benefit of 
" our readers, and finish it well, assisted by the pre- 
" sence of His Word in our soul b ." 

198. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. VI. 17. vol. I. 
p. 643. 

" But our Saviour and Lord, the Word of God, 



a Mexa ravO' 0 yevvaioraroq KeX- 
<joc, ovk otS' onoQev Xafoav, eita-nopet 
itpoq 'f\\^aq aq XeyovTaq, on avroq 
Kccreia-i npoq avOpunovq b Seoq' /cat 
o'terai aKoXovBetv rovra, to tyjv lav- 
rov ehpav avrov KaraXmetv' ov yap 
elhe "bvvay.iv Seov, /cat on nvevy.a 

Kvplov ntTtX'fipwKe k. t. a. ko\v 

0 Seoq rotvvv rav oXcov rf, eavrov 
hvvdfxei o-vyKaraj3alvrj ra 'Irjcrov elq 
rov rav av6pa%av [3 tov, Kav b iv apyjq 
npoq rov Seov Aoyoq, Seoq /cat avroq 
uv, ep^vjTat upoq rjyaq, ovk e^ehpoq 
y'werai, ovhe KaraXetitet r\v eavrov 



ebpav ei:ihrjue7 he hvvafAtq koi 

OeoTyq Seov St 1 ov fiovXerai, kou Iv 
o) evpto-Kci %apav, ovk a[/.et(3ovToq ro- 
itov, ov$ eKke'movToq %apav avrov 
Kevr,v, koi aXX'i\v nA'/jpovvroq. 

b Seoq he hoi'/) hia tov vlov avrov, 
oq ecri Seoq Aoyoq, koi <ro(pia, kou 
aXrjQeia, /cat hiKaioo-vvv], Ka) itav o, 
ri TTOTe BeoXoyovcrai itep) avrov <pacr;v 
lepa) ypacpa), ap^acrBat vjjAaq Ka\ rov 

Tte/ATtTOV TOfAOV • ( W.6Ta rr\q TOV 

Aoyov avrov elq r\v rj^erepuv -fyvyriv 
eTTihyj^taq , KaAuq. 



300 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" shewing the greatness of the knowledge of the 
" Father, that it is comprehended and known in its 
" full extent and primarily by him only, but in a 
" secondary sense by those who have their reason 
t( enlightened by him who is Word and God, says, 
" No one knoweth the Son, &c. (Matt. xi. 257.) for 
" no one can know him who is uncreated, and be- 
" gotten before every created nature in its full ex- 
66 tent, so well as the Father who begat him ; nor 
" can any one know the Father so well as the ani- 
" mate Word, who is His Wisdom and Truth c ." 

We may observe, that in this passage it is ex- 
pressly said, that Christ is uncreated: and yet it 
has been asserted, that Origen believed him to be a 
creature. Dr. Clarke tells us that Origen expressly 
reckoned the Son among the ^YjixioupyYjfMaTa or cre- 
ated things 6 -. But no such express declaration can 
be produced : and here we find it expressly said, that 
Christ is uncreated. One such word as this is more 
decisive than a thousand sentences, from which Dr. 
Clarke might infer his own doctrine. In drawing 
such inferences from indirect expressions, we may 
easily be mistaken : but if Origen has once called 
Christ uncreated, we must suspect the soundness of 

c 'AWa kou 6 Scti-njp vj/awj/ kou avrov Kai aA^6eia. 
Kvpioq, Aoyoq rov ©eoS, ro peyeOoq d Scripture Doctrine of the 




Trinity, p. 282. Epiphanius 
condemns Origen in no mea- 
sured terms for speaking of 
Christ as yevqrov ®eov. (Haer. 
LXIV. 8. vol. I. p. 53r.) But 
if Origen used the terms yevyroq 
and yewyroq indifferently, the 
censure of Epiphanius was ma- 
nifestly unjust. See note a at 
p. 26. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



301 



any inference, which makes him in any other pas- 
sage contradict himself. Xpia-ro^ to ayevvjTOv fypiovp- 
yr^a, Christ the uncreated creature, is a sentence, 
which contains a contradiction in terms : but the 
contradiction, though not so apparent or so palpably 
absurd, is equally fatal to the testimony of Origen, 
if the two terms are predicated of Christ in different 
parts of his works 6 . Socrates, who had more of 
Origen's books to read than Dr. Clarke could com- 
mand, tells us that " Origen every where acknow- 
" ledged the Son to be coeternal with the Father f f 
and Origen himself says in another place, " God 
" who is above all created things became man 
199. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. VI. §. 47. vol. I. p. 669. 

Origen observes in several places, that the Word 
of God, when it became incarnate, assumed a soul 
as well as a body ; so that the soul became inti- 
mately united with the Word. He illustrates this 
union by instances from scripture of things, " which 
" are two in their own nature, being reckoned and 
" actually being as one — that it is said of man and 
" wife, they are no longer two hut one flesh, (Gen. 
" ii. 24.) and that he that is joined unto the Lord 
" is one spirit ; (1 Cor. vi. 17.) but if so, who is 
" joined to the Lord, to the very Word, and very 
" Wisdom, and very Truth, and very Righteousness, 
" more than the soul of Jesus, or even so much? If 
" this be so, the soul of Jesus, and God the Word, 
" the firstborn of every creature, are no longer 
" two h ." 

e See Waterland, II. p. 140. h - — — t/? paWov t5js 'tyo-ov -^v- 

f VII. 6. %yj<; 75 nq,v TtapocwX^a-laq KeKoXXyrai 

g ©eo? 0 VKtp nrdvra roc y^vjru tS Kvp[a, ta avTokoy®, koi avro- 

h'fp§puT>Yi<T(;V. in Joan. tom. II, aocpta, kou avTOaXfiBeia, kou ocvto- 

28. vol. IV. p. 87. diKaiotrvvvj $ onep €i ovruq t%ei> ovk 



302 



ORIGEN, A.D. MO. 



200. Origenis c.Celsum, I. VI. §. 66. vol. I. p. 683. 
He thus quotes and illustrates the words of Isaiah 

ix. 2. " The people which sat in darkness, the Gen- 
" tiles, saw a great light : and to them which sat in 
" the region and shadow of death light is sprung up, 
" the God Jesus i ." 

201. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. VI. §. 69. vol. I. p. 684. 
Celsus having misunderstood what Origen and all 

the early Fathers taught, that the Father could not 
be seen by any one, but had made himself visible in 
his Son, pretended to give this as the substance of 
their doctrine, " that since God was great and in- 
" comprehensible, He put His own spirit into a body 
" like to ours and sent it hither, that we might hear 
" and learn from it." Origen shews that this is a 
misrepresentation of the doctrine; and he particu- 
larly guards against the notion, that the Son was 
less incomprehensible, or less invisible, in his divine 
nature, than the Father. " The God of the uni- 
" verse and Father is not the only one who is great 
" according to our doctrine: for He hath imparted of 
" Himself and of His greatness to the only-begotten 
" and firstborn of every creature : that he being 
" the image of the invisible God might preserve the 

" image of the Father even in greatness. We 

" allow then, that God is incomprehensible : but he 
" is not the only one who is incomprehensible ; but 
" also His only-begotten : for God the Word is in- 
" comprehensible.—- — It does not follow therefore, 
" because God is incomprehensible, that therefore 
" He sent his Son a comprehensible God but as 

€i<r) Ivo 7) tp v XV r °v 'fy™ "KptS T ° v 1 K0 " T0 '? KaQvjfAevoii; iv 

•nciavj; KTta-eaq npwtoTOKOV ®eov Ao- %up?> kcu ctki$ Oavurov (paq av- 
yov. eVetXev, o ®eoq 'lyjcrovq. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



303 



" we have proved, the Son also, being incomprehen- 
" sible, as being God the Word, by whom all things 
" were made, hath divelt among us k ." 

202. Origenis c. Celsum, 1. VII. §. 43. vol. I. p. 725. 
Speaking of that text, lie that hath seen me hath 

seen the Father, (John xiv. 9-) and having said that 
it cannot be understood of seeing with the eye, he 
adds, " Any one, who perceives how we are to un- 
" derstand of the only-begotten God, Son of God, 
" the firstborn of every creature, that the Word 
" became flesh, will see how any one that beholds 
" the image of the invisible God, will know the Fa- 
" ther and Maker of all this universe V 

203. Origenis c. Celsum, I. VIII. §. 17. vol. I. p. 755. 
Celsus having alluded to the absence of statues 

and images in Christian worship, Origen observes, 
that Temperance, Righteousness, &c. &c. were the 
images set up by true Christians, " by which we are 
" convinced it is fitting that the prototype of all 
" images, the likeness of the invisible God, the 
" only-begotten God should be worshipped 111 ." 
204. Origenis c. Celsum, 3. VIII. §. 42. 
vol. I. p. 772. 
The sense, in which Origen used the term God, 

k Ov povoq piyaq KaO* y[Aaq Ka) b vloq IvaQe&pvjToq av, are Aoyoq 
iariv b rwv t'hoov ©eoq Ka) Uar'/jp' ©eoq, di ov rd Ttdvra eyevero, koi 
y.ereb®Ke ydp eavrov Ka) ryjq peya,' io-Krjvoocrev iv vj[MV. 



)£< aKoveiv 



\eior-f\roq ra povoyevet Kai uparoroKCO 1 No^<x«<; riq ovv irSq 

TtdtTYiq KrtTeaq' tv eiKCov avroq rvy- <nep) povoyevovq ©eov vlov rov ©eov, 

yjdvuv rov aopdrov ©eov Ka) iv ra rov izpccroroKov T.dar^ Krlo~eo>q, Ka6- 

y.eye6et cruCfl rv\v etKova rov Ylarpoq. on b Aoyoq yeyove (rap!;, tyerai nuq 

• Ecttw hv] Ka) hv<r6ea>pY]Toq b Xtav riq rr\v eiKova rov dopdrov ©eov 

©eoq, aXX' ov [Aovoq dvaOeap'^roq ecrrl yvacxerai rov izarepa Ka) <novt\ry\v 

nvi, dXXd Ka) b [Aovoyevvjq avrov' rovtis rov itavroq. 

IvtrQeapyjToq yap b ©eoq Aoyoq — m olq itpeicov elvai TreTre/o"- 

Ov did to dv<T6eup'qroq ovv o ©eoq el- peQa ri[/.dar6ai to upoororvnov navruv 

vai, obq evQeap'qrov rov ©eov rov vlov aya"h[Adrccv, r\v eiKova rov ©eov rov 

eire^ev dXX\ wq dirohedaKa[xev, dopdrov, rov (xovoyevvj ©eov. 



304 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



when applied to Christ, may be collected from the 
following passage, in which he is mentioning an as- 
sertion of Celsus : " After this he (Celsus) says, 
66 (thinking that we call the crucified and tortured 
" body of Jesus God, and not the divinity within 
66 him, and that he was considered to be God, when 
ce he was crucified and tortured,) that they who cru- 
6( cified and tortured your God when upon earth, 
" suffered nothing for having done $o n " Origen 
proves that this is totally false, inasmuch as the city 
of Jerusalem shortly after was levelled with the 
ground : but I quote the passage merely to shew, that 
Origen expressly mentions the divinity of Christ as 
something really inherent in him. 

205. Origenis c. Celsum, L VIII. §. 67. 
vol. I. p. 792. 
ee Celsus says, that we should seem more to wor- 
" ship the great God, if we sung hymns to the Sun 
6i and to Minerva : but we know the contrary : for 
" we sing hymns to the only God, who is over all, 
" and to his only-begotten Word and God : and we 
" sing hymns to God and His only-begotten, as the 
" Sun and Moon and Stars and all the heavenly host 
« do°." 

206. Origenis e libro primo in Genesim, 
vol. II. p. 1. 

What has been called the eternal generation of 
the Son, or, which is the same thing, the eternity of 

n 'E^'/j? Tovroiq Xeyei, oUfxevoq 0 v/xvovq yccp elq [xovov tov 

to Karareivoj^evov kcu KoXct^oyevov in) <kuq-i Xeyopev @eov, kcu tov \/.ovo- 

(raua, tov 'It}<7</IJ, kcu ov t\v iv avrcp yevy uvtov Aoyov kcu ®eov' kcu vy.- 

OeoTfjTa, Qcov T,y.cxq Xeyeiv, kcu ot€ vov[/.ev ye ®eov kcu tov [Aovoyevvj av- 

KctTereiveTO kou IkoXccC^to^ ®eov vevo- tov, coq kcu yXioq, kcu o-eAvjvvj, kcu 

[AioOou, or i Tovte crov 0eov itapovTou ao-rpcc, kcu itoicra vj ovpctvi'cc o~rpot- 

KOkTOLTeivovTeq kcu KoXdfyvTeq ovhev Tid. 
ol TocvTa dpdo-avTtq nenovQaari. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



305 



the Son, seems to be plainly asserted in the following- 
passage. It is quoted by Pamphilus in his Defence 
of OrigenP, who adduces it as a proof of Origen's be- 
lief, that the Father was not before the Son, but 
that the Son was, coeternal with the Father. The 
passage is also preserved in the original Greek by 
Eusebius°i, and is as follows. " For God did not 
" begin to be a Father, having been prevented, like 
" men, who become fathers, by not being able yet to 
i{ become fathers. For if God is always perfect, and 
" the power of being a Father is present with Him ; 
" and if it is good for him to be the Father of such a 
" Son, why does He delay it, and deprive himself of 
" what is good ? and why not, if we may so say, be 
" Father of a Son from the time that He is able to 
" be so ? We must say the same also concerning the 
" Holy Ghost 1 '." 

20?. Origenis Selecta in Genesim, vol. II. p. 43. 

Upon those words in Gen. xxxii. 24. And Jacob 
ivas left alone, and there wrestled a man with him 
&c. Origen has this commentary : 6i Who else could 
" it be that is called at once man and God, who 
" wrestled and contended with Jacob, than he, ivho 
" spake at sundry times and in divers manners unto 
" the Fathers, (Heb. i. 1.) the holy Word of God, 



p C. iii. p. 25. 

( i Adv. Marcell. Ancyr. I. p. 
22. 

1 Ov ydp 0 @eoq naTrjp elvai 't\p- 
fcaro, Kcc'Avo[/.evoq, coq ol yivouevoi 
irarepei; dvQpu-KOi, vtto tov (M] hvva- 
cQa'i 7T0) r.arepeq elvai. E* ydp del 
re/.eioq 6 ©ec{, koi i:dpe<TTiv avTa 
Ovvauic rov TtaTepa avTov elvai, Ka) 
KaXov avTa elvai naTepa tov toiovtov 
vlov, t'i dva(3d\AeTai, i<a) eavTOV tov 



ndAov (TTYjpiTKei, Ka), &q ecniv elireiv, 
ov dvvaTai icaTVjp elvai vlov ; To 
avTo y.evToiye Ka) i:epi tov dylov 
UvevpaToq AeKTeov . Athanasius 
uses the same argument, Orat. 
I. contra Arianos, 27. Vol. I. 
p. 431. and 28. ^p. 433. el ydp 
KaXov to elvai ainov naTepa, ovk 
de) de 7jv iraTTjp, ovk de) dpa to ku- 
Xdv iv ai-Ta. 



X 



306 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" who is called Lord and God, who also blessed Ja- 
* cob, and called him Israel s , saying to him, Thou 
66 hast prevailed with God ? It was thus that the 
66 men of those days beheld the Word of God, like 
66 our Lord's apostles did, who said, That which was 
"from the beginning, which we have seen with our 
" eyes, and looked upon, and our hands have hand- 
" led, of the Word of life : (1 John i. 1.) which 
" Word and Life J acob also saw, and added, / have 
" seen God face to face 1 .'" 

It has been observed already, that all the Fathers 
considered it to have been Jesus, who revealed him- 
self to the patriarchs : and we may observe also that 
in this passage Origen refers to Christ what in the 
first verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unques- 
tionably said of God the Father. 

208. Origenis in Numeros Horn. XXIV. §.1. 
vol. II. p. 362. 

Of Origen's Commentaries upon the Books of Moses, 



s Which means seeing God. 
We may add here a similar pas- 
sage in Origen's fifteenth Ho- 
mily on Genesis : " His name 
" was no longer written Jacob, 
" but Israel, as one who saw in 
" his mind the true Life, which 
" is the true God, even Christ." 

tanquam qui mente videat 

veram Vitam, qua est verus Deus 
Christus. Horn. XV. §. 3. p. 100. 
In these last words there seems 
to be an allusion to 1 John v. 

20. eo~[Aev ev ra ScXvjOiva, ev ra via 
avrov 'lycrov Hpicrip' oiiroq eo~riv o 
aXyQivoq Seoq, kou ^oorj alcovioq. 

The passage is not quoted ex- 
pressly by any of the Ante-Ni- 
cene Fathers. Athanasius in 



several places uses it as a posi- 
tive assertion of the divinity of 
Christ : e. g. Vol. I. p. 99. 283. 
558. 569. 637. 684. 

t Tlq § J otv aXXoq e\'f\ 0 Xeyo(Aevoq 
avBpaitoq o^ov kou Seoq, <rvy,irotXotic0V 
kou away zov 1^0 pevoq ra 'Ia/ciy/3, ij 0 
noXvpepaq kou TvoXvrponaq XaXrjtraq 
rotq narpdaiv lepoq rov Seov Koyoq, 
Kvpioq kou Seoq y.p^arit^v, %q kou 
evXoyr\craq rov 5 I«/cw/3, 'IcrpavjA avrov 
avo/xacrev, eitentav, on evlayycraq 
pera. Seov ; ovraq de eapcov ol Tore 
avhpeq rov rov Seov Koyov, aq kou ol 
(pycravreq rov Kvpfov yjfAav cvnovro- 
Xoi, a O air ocpx^q k. t. X. ov 
Koyov, kou Zavjv Beacdpevoq kou 6 
'Ia/c«]S ivKpepei Xeyav, Eidov yap 
Seov Tipoa-conov itpoq npoeoMOv. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



307 



several Homilies are extant in Latin, which appear 
to have been translated by Rufinus u . Part of the 
second Homily upon Genesis is preserved in the ori- 
ginal Greek : and by comparing this fragment with 
the translation of Rufinus, we may perceive that he 
adhered closely to the original, and endeavoured to 
give the literal meaning, without indulging in the li- 
berty of altering or interpolating, as he did some- 
times. We may therefore quote these Homilies as 
containing the real sentiments of Origen. 

At p. 121, and 132, two extracts have already 
been given from the Commentary upon Genesis in il- 
lustration of the words of St. Paul, Phil. ii. 6 ; and if 
we are justified in trusting to this translation, we 
may also quote from the version which Rufinus made 
of the Homilies upon the Book of Numbers. 

In the twenty-fourth Homily we read, " If there 
" had been no sin, there would have been no neces- 
" sity for the Son of God to become a Lamb, nor 
" would there have been need for him to be in the 
" flesh and be put to death ; but he would have re- 
" mained what he was in the beginning, God the 
" Word x ." 

209- Origenis in Numeros Horn. XXIV. §. 2. 
vol. II. p. 364. 

Speaking of vows made to God, he observes, " To 
" offer oneself to God, and to please him, not by the 
" labour of another, but by one's own, this is more 
" perfect and more conspicuous than all vows ; and 
" whoever does so is an imitator of Christ. For he 

11 Vid. Huetii Origeniana, p. Agnum fieri, nec opus fuerat eum 

298. in carne positum jugulari, sed 

x Si non fuisset peccatum, mansisset hoc quod in principio 

non necesse fuerat Filium Dei erat Deus Verbum. 

x 2 



308 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



" gave to man the earth, the sea, and all things 
" therein, &c. &c. But after all these he gave him- 
" self. For God so loved the world, that He gave 
" His onhj -be gotten Son (John iii. 16.) for the life 
" of the world. What so great things then will man 
" do, if he offer himself to God, to whom God him- 
" self first offered himself 7?" 
210. Or i gents in Jesum Nave Horn. VI. §.3. 
vol. II. p. 410. 

Twenty-six Homilies of Origen upon the Book of 
Joshua are extant in Latin, translated by Rufinus : 
and since he tells us himself, that he expressed the 
original exactly as he found it, and did not employ 
much labour in the translation, we may quote any 
passage as containing the sentiments of Origen. To 
which we may add, that the beginning of the 20th 
Homily is preserved in the Greek, and if we com- 
pare it with the Latin of Rufinus, the difference is 
not considerable. 

In Joshua v. 13, 14. we read, And it came to 
pass when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted 
up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a 
man over against him with his sword drawn in 
his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said 
unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversa- 
ries ? And he said, Nay : but as captain of the 
host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua 
fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, 

y Semetipsum Deo offerre, et ipsum dedit. Sic enim dilexit 

non alieno labore sed proprio Deus munclum, ut Filium suum 

placere, hoc est perfectius et unigenitum daret pro mundi hu- 

eminentius omnibus votis : quod jus vita. Quid ergo magnum 

qui facit, imitator est Christi. faeiet homo, si semetipsum of- 

Ille enim dedit homini terram, ferat Deo, cui ipse se prior ob- 

&c. sed post hsec omnia semet- tulit Deus ? 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



309 



and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his 
servant f upon which Origen remarks, " Joshua 
" therefore not only knew that he was of God, but 
" that he was God : for he would not have wor- 
" shipped, if he had not known him to be God. 
<s For who else is Captain of the host of the Lord, 
66 except our Lord Jesus Christ 2 ?" 

This exactly agrees with the sentiments of all the 
Fathers, that the God who appeared either in a hu- 
man form, or in that of an angel, to any of the pa- 
triarchs, was Jesus Christ. 

211. Origenis in Jesum Nave Horn. VII. §. ult. 
vol. II. p. 415. 
The following quotation requires no comment, 
except that it relates to Achan's theft mentioned in 
Joshua vii. " In our disputations we are accus- 
" tomed to say, that we do not call Christ a mere 
" man; but we confess him to be God and man. 
" But that which is stolen from Jericho is said to 
" be pure, i. e. without God* : which was the cause 
" of sin to him that stole. Therefore let us have 
" no human thoughts concerning Christ, but let us 
" confess him to be equally God and man ; be- 
" cause the Wisdom of God is said to be manifold ; 
" that by this means we may deserve to be par- 
" takers of the Wisdom of God, who is Christ Jesus 
" our Lord, to whom is glory and dominion for ever 
" and ever b ." 

z Cognovit ergo Jesus non a What made the act sinful 

solum quod ex Deo est, sed to Achan was, that it was con- 

quia Deus est. Non enim ad- trary to the command of God. 
orasset, nisi agnovisset Deum. b Denique et nostris in dispu- 

Quis enim alius est princeps tationibus moris est dicere, quia 

militiae virtutum Domini, nisi Christum non purum hominem 

Dominus noster Jesus Chri- dicimus, sed Deum et hominem 

stus ? confitemur. Illud autem^ quod 

x 3 



310 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



212. Origenis in Reg. Horn. II. vol. II. p. 497. 
Origen, like many other of the Fathers, considered 

Joshua to be a type of Jesus : and in this place he 
expresses it by saying, "that Joshua (Jesus) was a 
" type of the true God c ." And whoever reads the 
Homily will be convinced that the true God means 
Christ. See N°. 214, 

213. Origenis in Psalm, viii. 5, 6. vol. II. p. 584. 
In this place he speaks of the " incarnation of our 

" God and Saviour d ." 

214. Origenis in Psalm, ix. vol. II. p. 585, 

At the beginning of the Commentary he says, 
" The unutterable knowledge of the mysteries con- 
" cerning Christ the true God is secret e ." 
215. Origenis in Psalm, xviii. 11. vol. II. p. 607. 

The mystical and allegorical method of inter- 
pretation adopted by Origen in this Psalm and in 
many other places cannot affect the plainness of his 
testimony to the divinity of Christ. Thus upon 
those words, He made darkness His secret place : 
His pavilion round about Him were dark waters, 
and thick clouds of the skies, he says, " If our God 
" is light, how is He covered with darkness ? But 
" I imagine that darkness covers Him in the same 
" way that a thing which is known is covered by 

de Jericho furatur, purum esse cui est gloria et imperium in 

dicitur, id est, sine Deo, quae ssecula saeculorum. 

utique furanti extitit causa pec- c Tov a'A^6ivov Seov Tvvoq i- 

cati. Et ideo nos nihil purum Ketvoc 6 'lyo-ovs. 

et humanum de Christo senti- d Txvra koI pera, tvjv Ivav- 

amus, sed Deum pariter atque Qpanya-iv voeTrai tov Seov kccI 2&>- 

hominem fateamur, quia et sapi- rypo<; 

entia Dei multiplex dicitur; ut e Kpvcpid ecm jvacriq anoppyTos 

per heec mereamur participium t£v Ttepi Xpicrrot tov uhrfiwov @eou 

sumere Sapiential Dei, qui est ^va-T^pioov. 
Christus Jesus Dominus noster, 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



311 



" ignorance ; which is said with reference to him 
" who knows, and not to the thing known. But 
" by His pavilion he meant the flesh, in which 
" Christ sat : he also called it a pavilion on account 
" of the temporary duration of His incarnation. 
" For though, he says, we have known Christ after 
u the flesh, yet now henceforth knoiv we him no 
" more, (2 Cor. v. 16.) He may also mean by the 
"pavilion, the bodily nature, in which God is seen 
" through the Word f " 

216. Origenis in Psalm, xviii. 47. vol. II. p. 612. 
There can be no doubt, that when the Psalmist 

said, It is God that avengeth me and subdueth 
the people under me, he meant the one only God, 
the Almighty : neither can there be any doubt, that 
in Deut. xxxii. 35. it is the Almighty, who says, 
To me belongeth vengeance and recompense, which 
St. Paul quotes, Rom. xii. 19 : and yet Origen's 
commentary upon this verse of the Psalm is, " Christ, 
" having received vengeance from God, says, Ven- 
" geance is mine : I will repay s." 

217. Origenis in Psalm, xxii. 9. vol. II. p. 620. 
This Psalm is always supposed to have been 

spoken in the person of Christ, and so Origen 
understood it : for at the 9th verse, Thou art 
he that took me out of the womb, thou didst make 
me hope, when I was upon my mother's breasts, 

f El o 0eo$ 7]y.av (paq itrri, ttS? to (pdvou crKf\v\v 8*a to np6(TKcupcv 

KOtkviZT€TOU <TK0T€l \ OlfAGCl §6 OTi O.V- T>J£ <T<XpK&<Ti.WC,—' • fivVOCTOtt §6 (TKYj- 
TQV OlrtCO KCc)\VTTT€l (TKQTGq, W$ KOU T7j v\v "kiytlV KOU TYjV crufAaTiKrjV (pv<riv, 

ayvotq, to yiVMCTKOf/.ei'ov avaKaXvTtre- iv rj Seoq tov Aoyov opccTou. 
tcu, yru; u<; <xpo<; rlv yivacrKOvra, kou s Aocfiuv ano &eov iK^iKr]aii<; 
ovitposToyivucTKOfAevovXeyeTcu. 2/oj- 'Kpitrrot; <pyj<riv, 'E/xot iKbiK'f\<rei<;, iya 
vvjv 8e avrov tyjv crctpKa avojAcccrey, avTanobuvu. 
iv fi Xpio-roi; iKaOe^ero' en $e kcu 

x 4 



312 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



he says, " For when God was born, His Father 
" brought him into the world : and him alone, I 
" imagine, of all that have been born ; because he 
" alone was of the Holy Ghost V 
218. Origenis in Psalm, xxvi. 3. vol. II. p. 630. 
Upon those words, / have walked in thy truth, 
he says, " If Truth is Christ our God, as he said, / 
<e am Truth, (John xiv. 6.) and David followed God 
" in Truth, therefore David pleased God in God : 
"for this account, he says, / have made haste to 
" walk in thy Truth instead of in thee : for speaking 
" in a periphrasis, he calls the Truth of God, God 
" himself 1 ." 

219- Origenis in Psalm, xxvii. 5. vol. II. p. 634. 

Upon those words, In the time of trouble He 
shall hide me in His pavilion, he says, " He calls 
" Christ a pavilion, in whom God even dwelt k ." 

220. Origenis in Psalm, xxxiv. 2. vol. II. p. 648. 
At the first verse of this Psalm, he says, " These 

" words are spoken by Christ, who liveth for ever, 
" and existeth without change 1 ." 

221. Origenis in Psalm, xxxvii. 32. vol. II. p. 676. 
The wicked watcheth the righteous and seeketh 

to slay him. Upon these words Or i gen observes, 
" Which without doubt they did against the Saviour, 
" who killed the prophets, and crucified God, and 



11 ®eoJ/ ydp yevofAevov o ^>xr\p 
ipaievo-ctro' oly.ou $e kou [aovqv rav 
el; yeveaiv iXyjXvQorav, ine) kcu [ao- 
voc, t£ dylov Hvevyarot; r\v. 

1 Ei rj ak'/]Qeid. itrri Xpunoq o 
®eo<; vjjAcov, obq einev, 'EyS elpi rj 
uX'ffitiar iv 8e ttj dKvjOela. evyjpe- 
<TT'/)cre AatiiS rS ®e®, iv ra @e« ev- 
v}pea~rei apa, b Aa,v}§ ra @e£. Aid, 



rovro, (pTjGiv, earnevaa evapcareiv Trj 
dK'rjOela gov, dvri rov, crol' Tcepi- 
(ppacrriKaq ydp rvjv d\r,6e.tav rov 
Seov avrov Ka'AeT rov ®eov. 

k ^K'f\vr\v rov Kpiarov ovo[/,d^ei, iv 
co kou Kocreo-KTfVao-ev b Oeo?. 

1 '0 iv itavr\ Kuipa 'Cpv kou imdp- 
yjAV dyer dizi cor oq Xpiarot; ravrd 

CpVjJl. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



813 



" persecute us even now, and the people of God, who 
" is Christ m ." The strong expression of God being 
crucified had already been used by Tertullian. N°. 
119. p. 223. 

222. Origenis in Psalm, xlv. 5. vol. II. p. 711. 
Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the 

King's enemies, ivhereby the people Jail under thee. 
Upon these words Origen says, " Those who fall 
" under Christ are in the heart and thoughts of the 
" enemies of Christ, who is the King : and evidently 
" Christ is God n ." 

223. Origenis in Psalm, xlv. 14. vol. II. p. 712. 
Upon this verse he says, " The palace of the 

" King, i. e. of Christ, is also his temple, since he is 
" also God°." 

224. Origenis in Psalm, xlvii. 5. vol. II. p. 715. 
God is gone up with a shout : the Lord with the 

sound of a trumpet. It is plain, that Origen un- 
derstood this of the ascension of Jesus Christ. " As 
" the Lord will come with the voice of an angel, 
" and will descend from heaven with the trump of 
66 God, so God went up with a shout p." 
225. Origenis in Psalm, xlviii. 12. vol. II. p. 717. 

Walk about Zion } and go round about her : 
tell the towers thereof: that ye may tell it to the 
generation following. For this God is our God 
for ever and ever : he will be our guide even unto 

m Quod fecerunt sine clubio oq itrrt [3a<TiXev<;' <ra(pccq §e ©eo? o 

adversus Salvatorem ilii qui Xpic-T&V 

prophetas occiderunt, et Deum ° c O OdXccpoq Se rov ^aa-iXeaq, 

crucifixemnt, et nos persecuti rovrecrTi Xpiarov, kou vacs, i<rriv av- 

sunt etiam nunc, et populum rov, iite) kg.) b Seo; ia-ri. 

Dei qui est Christi. p "Q&nep b Kvpioq iXivaerai iv 

n Kai oi vTtQKarcu) tov Xpiarov <pwr) ayyeXov, Kai iv aaXmayyi ®eov 

ntmovreq iv tt; Kccpblq, Kai To7q vo'f\- Kara^a-erai air' ovpavov, ovrcoq av- 

paalv alai tuv i%dpuv tqv Xptarov, e'jQij b @eo<; iv xXaXayiAu. 



314 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



death. Origen says, " This was fulfilled by the dis- 
" ciples dividing the world among them to announce 
" that Christ is God, that guides us a." 

226. Origenis in Psalm. 1. 2. vol. II. p. 721. 

" Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath 
" shined. Our God shall come, and shall not keep 
" silence, &c. Since Wisdom is the perfect beauty 
" of the Lord, this is in Sion : He, at whose birth 
" we say, Emmanuel is come visibly, and does not 
" keep silence, but speaks by whom he will, since 

" he is our God but fire and tempest are upon 

" those who do not attend to his coming, and to the 
" Word, who will come from the heavenly Sion, 
" being of equal power with the Father : for he was 
" the God of heaven, even when he came visibly, 
" i. e. when he became flesh : for then he became 
" visible : when he is come, he will not keep si- 
" lence, but will convince the world of sin, or de- 
" clare the will of his Father : for he is called the 

" Angel of great counsel; being in the power 

" and might of divinity, although born in the flesh, 
" like a fire and tempest he fell upon his adversa- 
" ries, the Devil and his angels r ." The prediction in 



q Tavra nXypovvrai in) ruv [xa- 
Q'/jruv pepCCppevuv ryv oiKOVjAevfiv, 
in) tS })irfyri<Ta<r6ai on Xpurroq 
icrriv o Seoq 7j[/.5v 6 noifAaivav 
'/}[/.dq. 

r Ylmep evnpeneia Ka) cbpaioryq 
Kvpiov 7} (Tocpla icrriv, avrr) iv tSj 
1,iuv icrriv. Ovroq, i<f> ov rr\ ye- 
vetrei Xeyopev, 'E(/.[/,avovrjX ipcpavaq 
v}Xde, Ka) ov napacriundL, dXXd Xe- 
yet St' <pv OeXei, iire) &eoq rjfAav 
iari.' nvp Se Ka) Karaiyiq in) 
rovq //.y] npoae^ovraq avrov rrj ini- 
tyavela, Ka) rS Aoya, oq rfeei iK ryjq 



inovpavlov 2twv, IcrocrOevyq uv ra 
Uarpi' ovpdvioq ydp rjv Seoq, Ka) 
ore vfXOev ipcpavaq, 5jTot ore yeyove 
<rdp%. Tore ydp oparoq yeyovev' 
iXQuv ov napacricon^crerai, dXXd rov 
koo-[/.ov iXeyijei rvjv dpaprtav, qyovv 
rrjv j3ovXY}(Tiv dvayyeXet rov narpoq. 
KaXeTrat yap [AeydXyq fiovXrjq dyye- 

Xoq iv i^ovcrla Ka) hwdpei 6eo- 

rqroq uv, Kalnep yeyovaq iv crapK) t 
KaBdnep ri nvp Ka) Karaiyiq npocr- 
eftaXe ro7q dvriK€i(A,evoiq avra tia- 
/3oXo? Ka) dal//,Q(jiv. 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



315 



verse 2 is referred to the coming of Christ by Atha- 
nasius s . 

227- Origenis in Psalm. 1. 6. vol. II. p. 722. 

And the heavens shall declare His righteous- 
ness, for God is judge himself; upon which Ori- 
gen says, " Here he evidently calls Christ God, for 
" the Father hath committed all judgment unto the 
" Son" (John v. 22 t .) 
22S. Origenis in Psalm, liii. 1. vol. II. p. 727. 

" The fool hath said in his heart, There is no 
" God. The fool thinks that there is no God ; 
" therefore he says it in his heart : but he does not 
" declare it with his mouth, for fear of men. Or — 
" the foolish people, which denies that Christ is God, 
" according to the former explanation about the 
" fool, is considered to say,, not with his mouth, but 
" in his heart, that there is no God n ." 
229- Origenis in Psalm, lv. 19. vol. II. p. 732. 

God shall hear and afflict them, even he that 
abideth before the worlds. Even this is referred 
by Origen to Christ : " If all things were made hy 
" him, he is truly said to exist before the worlds : 
" and hence we know that the worlds were brought 
" into being out of nothing x ." That this is applied 
to Christ, is evident from the rest of the commentary, 
and from the quotation of John i. 3. The Unita- 
rian translators say, that the words iravra fo* avrov 
eyaero, which we render All things were made by 
him, do not apply to the creation, but signify that 

x Ei ndvra 8/ avrov iyevero, aa- 
Xaq Xeyerai vTzapyjiiv irpo Tav al&>- 
vw. Kai ivrevOev yivuvtcofAev, %ri 
alwveq airo rov ovto; el; to elvai 
yeyovcuriv. 



s Ad Marcel. 5. vol. I. p. 983. 

t ''EvravOa Ttpobrfkuq tqv Xpia-rlv 
Aeyei ©eoV vaa-av yap ttjv npiariv 
ehuKev 0 Tzaryp tS via. 

u rj acppuv 0 Xao?, o$ dpvei- 

rai Xpto-rov elvat @eoy k. t. X. 



316 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



all things in the Christian dispensation were done 
by Christ, i. e. by his authority and direction. If 
Origen interpreted St. John as the Unitarians do, 
he would have reasoned thus in the above com- 
mentary : Christ truly existed before the worlds, 
because all things in the Christian dispensation 
were done by him ! 

I am aware that the Unitarians would try to 
lessen the absurdity of this reasoning by saying, that 
what we translate the worlds, aluves, means the dis- 
pensations. Origen would then say, that Christ 
existed before the dispensations, because all things 
in the Christian dispensation were done by him: 
which words, if they have any meaning, are not 
much less absurd than the former. But the fact is, 
that Origen did not understand almeg to mean dis- 
pensations, as we see by his words quoted above ; 
and the verse upon which he is commenting is in 
our translation, God shall afflict them, even He that 
ahideth of old. In another place Origen says, that 
" the church is able to behold the divinity of Christ, 
" because all things were made by him " see N°. 
238. I will undertake to assert, that there is not 
one single passage in any writing of the three first 
centuries, where the words in John i. 3. have any 
other interpretation given them, than that all things 
were created by Jesus Christ?. 

y Dr. Priestley had the bold- It is due to the Unitarians to 
ness to make the following com- say, that not many of them have 
ment upon the words of St. adopted this method of evasion. 
John ; "In this celebrated pas- Still less, I imagine, would they 
" sage there is no mention of follow Dr. P. in saying, that the 
" Christ, and that the word ho- Christians, for whom St. John 
" gos means Christ is not to be wrote his Gospel, never imagined 
" taken for granted.'' (History that Christ was meant by the Lo- 
ot early Opinions, vol. I. p. 68.) gos. (Ib. III. p. 160.) We may 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



317 



230. Origenis in Psalm, lvi. 1. vol. II. p. 732. 

" Be merciful unto me, O God, for man hath 
" trampled upon me. Christ says to his Father, 
" Be merciful unto me, for man hath trampled 
" upon me, who am God z ." 

231. Origenis in Psalm, lxviii. 4. vol. II. p. 752. 
" Sing unto God, sing praises to His name : 

"prepare the ivay for Him that rideth upon the 

" west; the Lord is His name. for although 

" He entered upon our poverty, and obscured His 
" own glory, as if rising out of the west, yet His 
" name is the Lord ; for though made man, He did 
" not lose being the Lord God a ." 

232. Origenis in Psalm, lxix. 2. vol. II. p. 755. 
" / sink in deep mire, where there is no stand- 

" ing : I am come into deep waters, where the 
"floods overflow me. God Himself, the Word, sends 
" forth a prayer to his Father, making those suffer- 
" ings his own which belong to the human nature he 
" assumed : he shews also the region of hell, whither 
" he alone descended and passed through 13 ." 

233. Origenis in Psalm, xcix. 5. vol. II. p. 780. 
" Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at 



remember, that Irenaeus always 
understood the Logos to mean 
Christ; and Irenaeus had been 
a disciple of Polycarp, who had 
seen St. John. It is well ob- 
served by Waterland, " St. John 
" in his Revelations seems to 
" have determined, thato Aoyoq is 
" the name of a person, not an 
" attribute, the person of Jesus 
" Christ: Rev. xix. 13." Third 
Letter to Mr. Staunton, vol. IV. 
P- 384. 

7 e O ~Kpi<xroq Aeyet irpoq rov Tca- 



repa, 'EXevjcroi/ pe' ®eov yap [j.e ovra 
avBpccnoq Karen ccT'/jtre. 

a Et kou ryq Yj(j.eTepaq 8e nra- 
Xelaq ini^rj, koi tyjv oiKelav avve- 
CKiace ho£av, e/c Zv<rf/.Sv avareX- 
Xav, aAA' oiv Kvpioq ovofAa. ccvtS' kou 
yap avdpznoq yeyovooq ovk ccneftaXe 
to thai Kvpio<; 6 ®e6q. Origen fol- 
lows the Septuagint. 

b Avroq rolvvv 6 @eoq Aoyoq ev- 
X'/jv av aire [Aire i narp), ibioitoiov- 
[xevoq to, Ka6' %v elkvjfev avOpconov 
%uQf\' S'/jXo? ra tov aftov yupia, 
k'vda jt*OJ/0S avrlq Karafiaq li^rfkQev, 



318 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" His footstool. Some have said that His footstool 
" is the flesh of Christ, which is to be worshipped 
" on account of Christ : but Christ is to be wor- 
" shipped on account of the Word of God which is 
" in Him c ." 

234. Origenis in Psalm, cv. 15. vol. II. p. 784. 

" Touch not mine anointed, &c. These anointed 
" persons (Christs) are called anointed (Christs) be- 
" cause they partake of Christ : but Christ is called 
" Christ, as partaking of his Father : and by Christ 
" I mean the Lord who dwelt among men in con- 
junction with God the Word d ." This explanation 
of the term Christ is given also at Psalm cxviii. 2. 
p. 797. 

235. Origenis in Psalm, cviii. 9. vol. II. p. 786. 
" Over Edom will I cast out my shoe. The 

" flesh is the shoe of Christ, which the Lord made 
" use of, and sojourned in the life of man e ." 

236. Origenis in Psalm, ex. 3. vol. II. p. 787. 

Origen translates this verse according to the Sep- 
tuagint, the last words of which are, Out of the 
womb before the morning have I begotten thee; 
upon which he observes, " Instead of, / have be- 
" gotten thee before every reasonable creature : for 
" to inquire deeper into the birth of Christ and of 
" the morning is not within our ability : for reason- 
" ing upon the subject is vast and incomprehen- 
" sible f ." This prudent reserve of Origen may be 



c To vvottohiov rav nohuv eiitov 

TlV€q eiVGtl T'/JV (TcipKO, T7JI/ TOV X/5J- 
(TTOV, VftlC, hlOC TQV XpiGTOV €<TTi 

irpo<7Kvvrjr^' o he ~Kpicrro<; npoo-Kvvq- 
ro<; hia, rov ev avrS Aoyov &eov. 

d OvTOl ot XpitTTO; 'KpKTTOV [AtT- 

eyovrec, Xeyovrai Xpurroi' o he Xpt- 



aroq rov Ylarpoq pereypv Xeyerat 
X/ho-tgV yLptcrrov he <pvj/>« rov pera 
rov Qeov Aoyov eitihrn^'fia-avra Kvpiov. 

e C H <rapl; icrri to vnohypa. rov 
Xpia-rov, f %pY)<ra,[Aevoi; 6 Kvpioq ive- 
h'/jiAfjcre ra fiiw rav avOpairav. 

f 'E/c yaarpli; irpo eacrcpopov eyev- 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



319 



compared with the following declaration of Irenseus : 
" If any one should ask us, In what manner was 
" the Son put forth by the Father ? we answer, That 
" no one knows that putting forth, or generation, or 
" giving of a name, or manifestation, or by whatever 
" term one may express his generation which cannot 

" be described, neither Angels, nor Archangels, 

" nor Principalities, nor Powers, except only the 
" Father who begat, and the Son who was born s." 
It would be trifling to inquire, whether the person, 
who could write thus, believed Jesus to have been 
born as an ordinary man. 

237. Origenis in Cant. Cant. v. 10. vol. III. p. 98. 

The object of this work does not require me to 
enter into the discussion, whether Origen and the 
writers of those days were correct in their inter- 
pretations of scripture. We are endeavouring to 
ascertain what were the doctrines which they de- 
duced from scripture, taking it as a whole. This 
remark applies particularly to the Song of Solomon ; 
about the true interpretation of which the learned of 
every age have given very different opinions. Origen 
conceived that it related to Christ and his church ; 
in which he has been followed by most commenta- 
tors : and though we might think, that he has car- 
ried his figurative interpretation of this poem too 
far in some instances, yet we cannot mistake his 
meaning in the expressions which he uses ; and if it 
be plain, that he considered the poem to relate to 
Christ, it is equally plain, that he considered Christ 

v/jcra o~e. 'Aj/t* tov, ITpo Ttao-<\$ 'ho- ov ttjs ^{/.erepot^ 1<tt\ tvvd[A€aq' no- 

yiKyq (pv<reu<; eyevvrpa ere. To yap hv<; yap o Kepi tovtov Koyo<; koi 

fiaQvTepov itepiepya^ea-Qai t\u yeve- tvo~Beup'fito$. 
div tov Xpia-Tov Kai tov ecoo-(j)6pov, g II. 28, 6. p. 158, 



320 



OMGEN, A. D. 240. 



to be God. Thus upon those words, My beloved 
is white and ruddy, he says, " White, because he 
" is the true God : and ruddy, on account of his 
" blood which he shed for the church 11 ." 
238. Origenis in Cant. Cant. vi. 5. vol. III. p. 99. 

" Turn away thine eyes from me. The church 
" looks at the comeliness and beauty of Christ, being 
" enabled by her greater advancement to behold his 
" divinity ; inasmuch as all things were made by 
" him i ." 

239- Origenis in Isaiam vi. 3. vol. III. p. 112. 

In this place Origen expressly says, that Christ is 
God. But the passage is not of much weight, be- 
cause the Homilies upon Isaiah have only come down 
to us in the Latin translation of Jerom ; and Rufinus 
tells us, that Jerom altered and omitted many things 
which seemed adverse to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
and added passages, which he thought favourable to 
that belief. 

240. Origenis in Jeremiam, Homil. I. vol. III. 
p. 128. 

Then said I, Ah, Lord God ! behold, I can- 
not speak : for I am a child, (i. 6.) Origen sup- 
poses, rather fancifully perhaps, that these words 
are spoken in the person of Christ ; and in the be- 
ginning of his commentary upon them he says, 
ec He who is the wisdom and power of God, who 
" brought to us the fulness of the Godhead which 
" dwelt in him bodily, how can the words, / cannot 
<£ speak, be applied to him, the Saviour k ?" He 

h AevKOt;, eVeiS^ 6 Oeo? akrjBiv%' [/.evrj ty/ irXeiovi npoKOTtrj KarufoeTv 

izvppoq Se, §<cb tc al^a. vnep ty<$ gk- avrov ttjv GeoTrjTa, ko,6o navTa §i 

KXYjfriaq yyftiv. avrov iyev€T0. 

1 e H iKKXvjaia. t?5 u>pociorv}Ti kou k "Octk; eVri a-ocpla, oanq ecrri 

tu KaKKet ivopa tov ~&pi<TT0v f Swa- Zvvtx^ic, &eov, %<; 'qveynev vjf/av to ttX^- 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



321 



then points out a way in which they might be ap- 
plied ; after which he observes, " If you ascend to 
" the Saviour, and see him the Word, who was in 
u the beginning with God, you will see that he can- 
"not speak: and if you compare the tongues of 
" angels with the tongues of men, and know that he 
" is greater than angels, as the apostle bore witness 
" in the Epistle to the Hebrews, you will say that he 
" was too great even for the tongues of angels, since 

" the Word was God with the Father Being in 

66 the majesty of the glory of God, he does not speak 
" as men, he knows not how to talk to those below: 
" but when he comes into a human body, he says at 
" once, / cannot speak, for I am a child: i. e. he 
" was young with respect to his corporeal birth ; 
" but he was old, inasmuch as he was the firstborn 
" of every creature : he was young, because he 
" came at the end of the world, and sojourned late 
" in human life 1 ." 

241. Origenis in Jerem. Horn. IX. vol. III. 
p. 176-7. 

The Word that came to Jeremiah from the 
Lord, (xi. 1.) Wherever it is said that the Word 
came to Jeremiah, or to any of the prophets, 



pccfAoc tSjs OeoTYjzot;., o KaTcpK'/)<rev iv 
avr£) o-afAariKcoq, mcoq ovv hvvarai 
dppo^eiv to, Ovk iiziara^ai XaXeTv. 

1 P. T30. 'Eav avafiyc iiii tov 
aurypa, Koi et'S^ avrov Aoyov iv 

<rrarai XaXelv' lav 8e koi ayyeXav 
yXwcrcraq arvyKplvTjq avOpuirwv y'hacr- 
<raiq, Ka\ e'ttyq on ovroq [Aeltyv ean 
Ka\ ayyeXav, ooq ipaprvprpev iv t5j 
itpoq'Efipalovq o ' AizoirToXot; iitta-roXri, 
epeiq oti koi rrjq ayyeXav yXa(rarv)$ 
[Ae't^uv rjv, ore Seoq Aoyoq vpoq tov 



Ylarepa — 'Ei/ T77 [AeyaXeior^n ryjq 
ho^fjc, tov &€0v Tvyyjxvav ov XaXei av- 
Opaitiva, ovk oi§e cf)9eyyea-6ai ro7q Ka- 
ra' OTt- Se epyerai elq (rZ/xa avOpairi- 
vov, Xeyei Kara rac, apyjxq, Ovk eW- 
Gra^ai XaXeiv, on vearepoq eyco elfju' 
vearepoq Se dia r\v yeveciv r\v acc- 
\KariK\v, irpea^vrepoq he Kara to, 
UparoTOKoq Tta<rv)<; rrjq Krltreooq' veu- 
repot;, on en) crvvreXeia t£v ouavuv 
rfxQe, koi varepov rep filcp ein&eSyj« 

[AVJK€. 



Y 



322 ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 

Origen understands it of Christ the Word of God. 
" I know no other Word of the Lord, but him, of 
" whom the evangelist says, In the beginning was 
" the Word; and the Word was with God, and 
" the Word was God. It is particularly neces- 

sary for this to be known by us ecclesiastics, who 
" conceive, that there is the same God of the Law 
" and of the Gospel, the same Christ, both then, and 
" now, and for ever. There are some who separate 
" the divinity, which preceded the coming of the 
" Saviour, according to their own conceptions, from 
" the divinity which was announced by Jesus Christ : 
" but we know one God both then and now, one 
" Christ both then and now m ." 

242. Origenis in Jerem. Horn. XIV. vol. III. 
p. 212. 

Woe is me, my mother, xv. 10. On the same 
principle of interpretation, he refers these words to 
Christ ; and shews, that it was not unworthy of him 
to utter them. He adduces his lamentation over 
Jerusalem, (Matt, xxiii. 37.) and he puts into his 
mouth the complaining words spoken by Micah vii. 
1, 2. He also considers Christ to have spoken those 
words of the Psalmist, What projit is there in my 
blood, when I go down to the pit? xxx. 9. 
which he paraphrases thus : " What profit have men 
" derived from so great a thing ? what have they 
" done worthy of the blood which I shed for them ? 



m 'E>yw qvk o!ta aXhov Xoyov Kv- 
plov, 7j rovrov nep) qv tlpf\Kev o evay- 

ye\io-ry<; to, 'Ev a,p%ri K. t. A. 

Tavra he (/.akiara ko,6' tj/x,«$ rovq 
eKKKYjcricccrriKOvi; avayKaiov ecrrt yi- 
vcliiUKeaBai, o'lnve^ Beko[A.ev rov av- 
rov elvat ®eov vopov kou evayyeXiov 
rov avrov XpicrrQV, K/xi rore kou vvv 



kou eU icdvraq rovq alavotq. "E<rov- 
rcu ol hiaKoixrovreq r\v Beor^ra r\v 
wpecr{3vrepa,v rvj<; e7tidrju,la<; rov <roo- 
rrjpoq, ocrov etti ttj euvrSjv vnoX'/jipei, 
a-Tto rvjq Beorvjroq ryj<; eitovyyeXkojAe- 
vvjq vtto 'lyja-ov Xptarov' rj^elq Se eva. 
ofyapev Seov, kou rore kou vvv' eva. 
Xpi<rrov kou rore kcu vvv. 



ORXGEN, A.D. 240. 



323 



" what profit is there in my blood, in my coming 
" down from heaven ? I came down ; I came upon 
" earth : I have given myself to corruption ; I have 
" borne a human body : what good thing worthy of 

" this hath been done to men ? Similar to this 

" is what the Saviour says in this place, Woe is me, 
" my mother, what a man hast thou home me ? 
" He does not speak this as God the Saviour, 
f* Woe is me, my mother, but as man : so in the 
66 prophet, Ah, my soul I for the good man is 
"perished out of the earth; (Micah vii. 2.) his 
" soul was human ; for this reason it was trou- 
" bled : for this reason also it was exceeding sor- 
" rowful : but the Word, which was in the be- 
66 ginning with God, he is not troubled: neither 
" would he say, Ah me ! for the Word is not sub- 
c< ject to death ; but it was the human nature which 
" submitted to this, as we have often proved 11 ." 

So also in Horn. XV. p. 2M. he says, " These 
" words are not unworthy of the divinity of our Sa- 
" viour, when he beheld the sins of men : but to 
" say, Ah me ! belongs to the Saviour, not in that 
" he is God, but man : not inasmuch as he is Wis- 
" dom, but a Soul 0 ." 



n T< uHpeXrjcre rrfXiKOvro rovq dv- 
Bpaizovq ; Ti d^iov tov aipocroq, ov 
elep^ea vnep avruv, Treirot^/cacrt ; riq 
axpeXeia, iv rZ cupari, ra KaTaffi- 
vai /xe e| ovpavav ; Kara,j3e^YjKa, 
\hBov in) rrjv yyv, inidaKa ipavrov 
dia^Bopct, i^opecra crapa, dvBpairivov^ 
t/ ctvrav d^iov KarapBarai ro7q dv- 

Bpaitoiq ; Toiovro ovv i<rn koi 

to ivBuZe nparov imo tov crarvjpoq 
Xeyouevov ro' oi^oi iya [A-qTyp, aq 
rlva ]U,e ereKeq dvtpa ; ovy) o ®eoq 
o (rcoTYjp Xeyei ro, o'lpoi iya ^rrjp, 



dXX' 3j av&panoq, cbq iv t§ irpocpyTTj, 
o'i'[xot 4* v Xy> OTi dnoXuXev evXaByq 
duo ryq <yf\q' vj de dvBpwirivrj 
i\v' did, rovro koci rerdpaKrcti, Sia 
toSto kcci neplXwoq fy' 6 Aoyoq, 
6 iv dpyjri Tcpoq tov Seov, ov rerdpa- 
KTai iKeTvoq, ovk dv Xeyoov to, ol^oi' 
ovt\ ydp o Aoyoq eTTiSe^eTai Bdvarov, 
dXXd to dvBpuTtivov icrri to tovto 
iTrihe^dfA-evov, aq noXXuKiq irapeo-T'/j- 
o-a{/.ev. 

° ovk dXXorpiov ianv rvjq 

rov ucorripoq r^cov Beior^roq, kccB- 
Y 2 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



243. Origenis in Jerem. Horn. XV. vol. III. 
p. 226. 

Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, ch. 
xvii. 5. " Let us treat of these words with refer- 
" ence to those who think that the Son of God, the 
" Saviour, was a man. For among many human 
" evils, they have dared even to say this, that the 
" only-begotten, the firstborn of every creature, is 
" not God : for cursed is he that trusteth in man : 
" it is plain that they are accursed, who put their 
" trust in man. I would say, that I do not trust in 
" man, when I trust in Jesus Christ. I know him 
" not as man : not only have I not known him as 
" man, but I have known him as Wisdom, as very 
" Righteousness : a man, by whom all things were 
" made in heaven and in earth, whether visible or 
" invisible, &c. (Col. i. 16.) — —For though the Sa- 
" viour maintain, that he, whom he assumed, was 
" man, yet though he was man, he is now no longer 
" man p." 

244. Origenis in E%echiel. Horn. VI. vol. III. 
p. 380. 

Fourteen of Origen's Homilies upon Ezekiel have 
come down to us translated by Jerom ; and since he 



oowvToq tcc a[/.a.prri[/.a.Ta tccv avBpcc- 
icav' vvv to Xeyeiv to, o'lpoi, tov 
awvl]poq ovyfi f t @eoq, aXX* rj avBpa- 
noq, ov% rj trocptct, aXA 1 rj "tyvyj/j. 

P EiWjWev ovv el$ to efvj? avayvcor 
oBev to, 'EitLKaTapaToq avBpaitoq oq 
ivjv eA7TiSa eyjei eV avBpaitov, Ik tov 
Tovq vo^'CCpvT aq on avBpooitoq [Aev tov 
®eov o vlo$ rjv o <ra>Typ' eToX^rjaav 
yap \KeTOj tZv ttoXXZv tZv StvBpairt- 
vcov kcikuv kou tovto elitelv, OTI OVK 
etTTi ®eoq o [Aovoyevrjq o <npuT0T0K0q 
ndcrjq KTiaewq' eniKaTapaToq yap oq 
T7]v eXrclha eyjii eV avBpanov. A$j- 



Xov on eittKaTapaToi elaiv oi en av- 
Bpunov e%ovTeq tt,v eXittha. *Eyw 
e'moiui oti ovk eii avBpomov eyfis ttjv 
iXnlha, eX'KiC.av eiii tov 'Irjcrovv Xpi- 
g-tov eya avBpaitov ovk oifia. Ov 
povov avBpuizov ovk o&a, aXXa, cro- 
<plav olha, TTjv avTobiKaiocrvvrjV, av- 
Bpwriov, Si' ov eKTlaBri to, isavTa ev 
To7q ovpavoiq kou eVi Tr\q yr)q, etre 
opaTa etre dopaTa, etre dp^ai, eiTe 

e^ovcrlai — k$v yap Typy o cr co- 

TYjp, oti ov i<p6peaev, avBpattoq r)v % 
ScXX' el kou v\v avOpunoq, dXXd vvv 
ovoapuq evTiv avBpconoq. 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



325 



tells us, that he adhered very closely to his original, 
we may quote them as genuine. In this place he is 
commenting upon Ezek. xvi. 8. — et ecce tempus 
tuum et tempus divertentium, which our version 
renders, Behold thy time was the time of love; 
upon which Origen says, " Our Lord Jesus Christ, 
" our God, again visits the miserable Jerusalem, i. e. 
" our sinful soul V 

245. Origenis in E%ech. ii. 1. vol. III. p. 408. 

" And he said, Son of man, stand upon thy feet. 
" As far as I remember, the words, Son of man, 
" are said more continually to Ezekiel than to any 
" of the prophets, and more rarely to Daniel, each of 
" whom is in captivity a type of him who came to 
" us captives, Jesus the Saviour who is God r ." 

246. Origenis in Matt. torn. XV. §. 24. vol. III. 

p. 687. 

" But if you can conceive the Word restored after 
" his becoming flesh — — that he might be what he 
" was in the beginning with God, being God and the 
« Word, in his own glory, in the glory of such a 
" Word you will see him sitting on the throne of 
" his glory, and not different from him you will see 
" the Son of man, who in Jesus was considered to 
" be a man : for it is made one with the Word in a 
" much higher degree than those, who from being 
"joined to the Lord become one spirit with him." 
(1 Cor. vi. 17 s .) 

( J Dominus noster Jesus s El 8e hvvao~ai vorjo-ai tov Aoyov 

ChristUS Deus noster rursum di:oKa.Tct(TTa.vTa pev //.era to yeyo- 

visitat miseram Jerusalem, id vevai avTov <rdpt<a,, kou ova, yeyove 

est, peccatricem aniinam no- Toiq <y«vv>jTo<V, fva ytv^Tai otio7o<; 

strain. y\v iv ccpy^ "npoq tov @eov, &eoq kcu 

r Tvnoq uv tov nvpoq tov$ Aoyoq, av ev Ty Itia, ho%r\, an; Aoyov 

auyj^oCh&Tovc, Y]y.a,q l^ekffAvQoToq 'Ioj- toiovtov So'|t] cnpei ainov Kade^oy.evov 

(Tov tov a-uTrjpot; Seov. eiii Bpovov Sof^s clvtov, Koi ov^ erepov 

Y 3 



326 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



247. Origenis in Matt. torn. XVII. §. 20. vol. III. 

p. 798. 

" Having made these remarks upon the words, 
" The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man 
" who is a king, (Matt. xxii. 2.) we can also find 
" the cause of the Saviour constantly calling himself 
" Son of man, by which he shewed, that as God in 
" His government of men is figuratively called man, 
" and perhaps even in a manner becomes so, thus 
" also the Saviour, being primarily Son of God, is 
" also God, and Son of His love, and the image of 
" the invisible God: but he does not continue in 
" his primary state, but according to the dispensa- 
" tion of him who is figuratively called man, being 
" really God, he becomes the Son of man, because 
" in his government of men he imitates God, who 
" is figuratively called, and in manner really be- 
" comes, man V 

248. Origenis in Matt. vol. III. p. 882, 3. 

Origen wrote twenty-five volumes of Commen- 
tary upon St. Matthew u . Almost the whole of 
the nine first volumes is lost : but eight volumes, 
from the tenth to the seventeenth inclusive, are 



tov '1y)<tqvv avdpuitov voovpevov' tv 
yap ovraq tS Koyoo ytverai ■ko.vtuc, 
[AaAAov tcov 6ia to KoXkacrOai tS 
Kvplcp yivopevuv ev uvevj^a itpoq av- 
Tov. 

1 "Anal; Se TavTa elnovTeq elq to, 
'VifAOiaQy '/] (3ao-iAeta tZv ovpavav 
avOpwircp [3a<Ti\e7 } GvvdpeBa Ka) ttjv 
aiTiav evpeiv tov avveyfic, tov /ruTyjpa 
vlov tov dv6paitov t vlov avBpaTZOv, 
eavTov dovopaKevai, QyAovvTa oti 
u<ru:ep o ®eo£ dvOp&ivovc, oIkovo^oov ac, 
iv napafioXaiq avQpomoq XeyeTai, tcc- 



%a be Tta$ Kai yiveTui' ovTaq Kai o 
crcoTTjp irpQYjyovi/.evu<; vllq av tov 
®eov Ka) ©eo's e<TTi t Ka) vloq tSjs 
ayditvis avTov, koi eiKav tov Seov 
tov dopaTOV' ov fAevei ev as ecrr* 
irpoYjyovfxevcoq, dXka ylveTai KaT ot- 
Kovaplav tov iv r uapa^o'Ka7q Aeyope- 
vov avOpavov, ovToq §e ®eov, vioc, dv~ 
Opconov, KaTa. to (Aipeio-6ai %iav dv~ 
QpuTtovi; olKOvofvrj tov ®eov, Aeyo^evov 
iv napa^oAaiq Ka) yivopevov vcct; av~ 
Qpooitov. 

a Eus. H. E. VI. 36. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



327 



extant in the original Greek. There is also an old 
Latin translation, which begins at Matt. xvi. 13. 
and is so much the more valuable, because it sup- 
plies the last eight books, which are no longer extant 
in Greek. This old version seems to have been 
made sufficiently literal for us to depend upon its 
being a faithful representative of Origen's senti- 
ments, where his own words are lost. 

After quoting the declaration of our Saviour, 
Lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the end of 
the world, (xxviii. 20.) and also, Where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am 
I in the midst of them, (xviii. 20.) he says, " He 
" who places himself in the midst even of those who 
" know him not, is the only-begotten of God, God 
" the Word, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Truth, 
" who is not confined by corporeal bounds. According 
" to this his divine nature he does not move, but he 
" moves according to the incarnate body which he 
i( bore. — But when we say this, we do not separate 
" the humanity of the body which he bore, since it 
" is written in John, Every spirit that separateth 
" Jesus is not of God, (1 John iv. 3.) but we give 
" to each substance its peculiar nature. For if 
" every faithful man who is joined unto the Lord 
" is one spirit, (1 Cor. vi. 17-) how much more is 
" that human nature, which Christ bore by his in- 
" carnation, not to be separated from him, nor to 
" be said to be different from him ? Observe also 
" how he says, Like a man travelling into a far 
66 country, (xxv. 14.) because he was not man, but 
" like a man ; and he may travel into a far coun- 
" try like a man, who according to his divine na- 

" ture was every where For he is not a mere 

Y 4 



328 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" man, who is wherever two or three shall be ga- 
" thered together in his name : nor is a mere man 
" with us always even to the end of the world, 
" Nor is a mere man present wherever the faithful 
66 are met together, but the divine power which was 
<c in Jesus x ." 

The quotation whieh this passage contains from 
1 John iv. 3. is so different from the text in our 
printed editions, that I cannot help making a few 
remarks upon it. Origen, as we have seen, or at 
least his Latin translator, read it, Omnis spiritus, 
qui solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo. The verse, as it 
appears in all our printed copies, is this. Hav mevfm, 
o fAY] o[j.oXo<yei iov 'lycrovv "Kpiarov ev crapici eXfjKvQoTa, Ik 

TOV SeOV OVK €QTl 9 KCU T0VT0 IdTL TO TOV * AvTl^piGTOV, but 

Griesbach decides, that we ought to read itav 7rvevfxa 9 
o [JLY) O[xokoyei rov 'ivjaovv, €K rov Seov ovk eari, k. t. A. 

I can hardly think, that this rejection of the 
words ev o-apKi ekvjkv$0Ta is supported by authority. 



x Qui in medio etiam ne- 
scientium se consistit, Unige- 
nitus Dei est, Deus Verbum et 
Sapientia, et Justitia et Veri- 
tas, qui non est corporeo ambitu 
circumclusus. Secundum hanc 
divinitatis suae naturam non 
peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur 
secundum dispensationem cor- 
poris quod suscepit. Secundum 
quod et turbatus est, et tristis 
factus est, dicens &c. Htec 
autem dicentes non solvimus 
suscepti corporis hominem, cum 
sit scriptum apud Joannem, 
Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum 
non est ex Deo, (i Jo. iv. 3.) 
sed unicuique substantia? pro- 
prietatem servamus. Si enim 
omnis homo Jidelis qui conjungi- 



tur Domino unus spiritus est, 
quanto magis homo ille quern 
secundum dispensationem .car- 
nis Christus suscepit, non est 
solvendus ab eo, nec alter est 
dicendus ab eo ? Et vide quo- 
modo ait, Sicut homo peregre 
futurus : quoniam non erat ho- 
mo, sed sicut homo: et quasi 
homo peregrinabitur, qui erat 
ubique secundum divinitatis na- 
turam Nec enim est homo, 

qui est ubicunque duo vel tres 
in nomine ejus fuerint congre- 
gati. Neque homo nobiscum 
est omnibus diebus usque ad 
consummationem saeculi. Nec 
congregatis ubique fidelibus ho- 
mo est prsesens, sed virtus di- 
vina quae erat in Jesu. 



ORIGEN, A.D.240. 



329 



Socrates tells us?, that the passage had been cor- 
rupted by those, who wished to separate the hu- 
manity of Christ from his divinity, and that the old 
copies read 7rav Trvevfxa o Xvei tov 'lyaovv aito tov Seov 
ovk eo-n, which exactly agrees with Origen's quota- 
tion : but the remarks which Socrates makes, would 
almost lead us to think that his old copies read nav 
Trvtvfjia, o Kvei tov 'Ivjcrovv airo tov Seov, Ik tov Seov ovk 

if 

6CTT/. 

The Latin version of Irenaeus agrees with Origen 
in preserving the old reading, Omnis spiritus qui 
solvit Jesum non est ex Deo, sed de Antichristo 
est z . The Vulgate also has the same reading : all 
which seems to shew an agreement in the Latin 
copies. 

The authority for the words which Griesbach ex- 
cludes, ev aapKL €AY)\v8oTa, is also very old. Poly carp 
evidently alludes to this passage, when he savs a , 
nag og av [ayj ofxoXoyyj 'lycrovv XptaTov ev uapKt ekyXvQevai 'Av- 
Tlyj>i<TTog ea-Ti' and it might be thought, that Ignatius 
had read ev aapKi ekyXvOoTa, from the following expres- 
sion in his Epistle to the Smyrnseans, (c. 5. p. 36.) t/ 
yap [xe oxpeXei Tig, el efxe e7raivei, tov $e Kvpiov [xov /3ka<r- 
<pY)fxei f [XT] 6[xo\oycov avTov capKO(popov ; Tertullian seems 
to recognise both readings — Joannes apostolus, qui 
jam antichristos dicit processisse in mundum pre- 
cursor es Antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum 
in came venisse et solventes Jesum h : and again, 
Joannes in Epistola eos maxime antichristos vo- 
cat, qui Christum negarent in came venisse, et qui 
non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei c . Cyprian 

V VII. 32. p. 381. b Adv. Marc. V. 16. p. 480, 1. 

III. 16, 8. p. 207. c De Praescr. Haer. c. 33. 

a Ep. ad Philip, c. 7. p. 188. p. 214. 



330 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



reads Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Chri- 
stum in came venisse de Deo est : qui autem negat 
in came venisse, de Deo non est, sed est de Anti- 
christi spiritu d . Dionysius of Alexandria at p, 261. 
quotes el Tig ovv opoXoyei 'lyo-ovv Xpio-Tov ev aapKi 

eXyXvQoTa, ovTog evTiv o 'AvTi%pio-Tog : and at p. 80. he 
expressly says, that in this Epistle John spoke irpog 
Tovg ovk ev aapKi cf>aaK0VTag eXvjXvOevai tov Kvpiov. Epi- 
phanius twice quotes the passage with the words ev 
crapKi eXvjXvOoTa, or eXy)Xv6evai G . 

All these authorities might lead us to question 
the propriety of adopting Griesbach's reading : at 
least I do not see how we can reject the words ev 
aapKi eXriXvBoTa, which appear in so many quotations, 
unless we follow what Socrates calls the old read- 
ing, o Xvei tov 'Iyjo-ovv. I may add, that the antithesis 
between the second and third verses would seem to 
require that the words ev aapKi eXy\XvQoTa should 
appear in both : and in the second Epistle, v. 7. we 
have an expression very similar to that of the re- 
ceived text, ttoXXo) nXavoi el(jy}X6ov elg tov Koapov ol fJW) 
ofj.oXoyovvTeg 'Ivjaovv ~Kpi(7T0v epyopevov ev aapKi' ovTog ea-Tiv 
6 irXavog kou o 'AvTi^piaTog. 

249. Origenis in Matt. vol. III. p. 902. 

Commenting upon these words, My soul is ex- 
ceeding sorrowful, (xxvi. 38.) he says, " He began 
" to be sorrowful according to his human nature, 
" which is subject to such feelings, but not accord- 
" ing to his divine power, which is far removed 
" from any feeling of this kind. And we say this 
" of Jesus, that you may not suppose, as some here- 
" sies, that he was a mere man ; but that God took 

d Test. II. 8. p. 288. 

e Haer. XXIV. 9. p. 75. XXVI. 15. p. 97. 



OR! GEN, A. D. 240. 



331 



" the real nature of a human body, which might 
" suffer together with our infirmities, since he also 
" was clothed with the infirmities of a human 
" body f ." 

250. Origenis in Matt. vol. III. p. 920. 
Origen observes, that the temptation, which is 
recorded by the three first evangelists, is not men- 
tioned by St. John, " who gave an account of his 
" spiritual nature : for the Truth, and the Life, and 
" the Resurrection, and the true Light are not 
" tempted : but he was tempted according to the 
" human nature, which the only-begotten God as- 
" sumed s." 

We find the same observation in the XXIXth 
Homily on Luke, when he is commenting upon those 
words, Man doth not live by bread alone, after 
which he says, " We may see that the Son of God 
" does not say this, but the human nature, which 
" the Son of God condescended to assume : for he 
" answers as if concerning a man, and says, It is 
" written, Man does not live hy bread alone : from 
" which it is plain, that not God but man was 
" tempted. After diligently examining the mean- 
" ing of scripture, I think that I have found the 
" reason why John has not described the temptation 



f Ergo coepit quidem tristari 
secundum hum an am naturam, 
quae talibus passionibus subdita 
est, non autem secundum divi- 
nam virtutem, quee ab hujus- 
modi passione longe remota est. 
Et heec dicimus de Jesu, ut non 
arbitreris, sicut quaedam hae- 
reses, hominem eum fuisse, sed 
Deum veram humani corporis 
suscepisse naturam, qui poterat 
compati infirmitatibus nostris, 



quoniam et ipse circumdatus 
erat infirma natura humani cor- 
poris. 

8 secundum Joannem 

autem, qui spiritalis naturae ejus 
fecit sermonem, non tentatur : 
nec enim tentatur Veritas, et 
Vita, et Resurrectio, et Lumen 
verum : sed tentabatur secun- 
dum hominem quern susceperat 
unigenitus Deus. 



332 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



" of our Lord, but only Matthew, Luke, and Mark. 
" For John, who made his exordium from God, by 
6< saying, In the beginning, &c. and could not com- 
" pose an account of his divine birth, but only ex- 
" pressed that he was of God and with God, added, 
" and the Word was made flesh. Consequently 
" because God, of whom he was treating, cannot be 
" tempted, therefore he does not introduce him as 
" tempted by the Devil — If therefore the Son of 
" God, who is God, became man for your sakes, and 
" is tempted, you, who by nature are man, ought 
" not to complain if you are tempted h ." 
251. Origenis in Joannem, torn. II. vol. IV. p. 85. 

Speaking of our Saviour and John the Baptist, 
one of whom was called the Word and the other the 
voice, he says, " In one word, when John points 
" out Christ, a man points out God and the incor- 
" poreal Saviour 1 ." Compare Hippolytus N°. 147. 
p. 259. 

252. Origenis in Joan. torn. II. vol. IV. p. 87. 

The same came for a witness, to he a witness of 
the Light, that all men through him might believe. 



11 Simulque videamus quod 
haec loquatur non Filius Dei, 
sed homo, quern Filius Dei 
dignatus est assumere : quasi 
de homine enim respondet, et 
dicit, Scriptum est, &c. ex quo 
manifestum, non Deum, sed ho- 
minem fuisse tentatum. Scrip- 
turae sensum diligenter eventi- 
lans, reor invenire me causam 
quare Joannes tentationem Do- 
mini non descripserit, sed tan- 
turn Mattheeus, Lucas et Mar- 
cus. Joannes enim, qui a Deo 
exordium fecerat, dicens, In 
principio &c. nec poterat divinse 



generationis ordinem texere, sed 
tan turn in odo quod ex Deo et 
cum Deo esset expresserat, ad- 
jecit, Et Verbum caro factum est. 
Porro quia Deus tentari non pot- 
est, de quo ei erat sermo, ideo 
tentari ilium a Diabolo non in- 

troducit. Si igitur Filius 

Dei Deus pro te homo factus 
est et tentatur, qui natura homo 
es non debes indignari si forte 
tentaris. p. 967. 

1 "Ore '"laa.vvqc tqv Xptcrrov Se/- 
Kvvcriv, ccvdpccizot; Seov teiKwa, kou 
trccT'ijpa tqv aaa>[A.GCTQV, koli (pavvj TQV 
Aojqv. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



333 



(i. 7.) Origen informs us, that some heretics objected 
to this passage, because Christ, if he was God, could 
have no need of any one to bear witness of him. 
" We must say therefore in answer to such men, 
" that since there may be many causes, which 
" excite men to believe, (for some persons will not 
" be moved by this demonstration, but will by that,) 
" God is able to afford to men many opportunities 
" of persuading themselves, that God who is over 
" all created things, became man k ." 

£53. Origenis in Joan. torn. II. vol. IV. p. 92. 

" The only-begotten God therefore our Saviour, 
" alone begotten by the Father, is Son by nature 
" and not by adoption : but he is born from the 
" very mind of the Father, like the will is from the 
" mind. For the divine nature, i. e. nature of 
" the unbegotten Father, is not divisible, as if we 
" were to suppose that the Son was produced either 
" by division or by lessening of his substance. But 
" whether we are to speak of the mind, or the heart, 
" or the sensation of God, He became the Father of 
" the Word, Himself continuing unaltered, putting 
" forth the germ of His will ; which Word, remain- 
" ing in the bosom of his Father, announces God, 
" whom no one hath seen at any time, and reveals 
" the Father, whom no one hath known except him 
" only, to those whom his heavenly Father draws 
" towards Him V 

k AeKreov ovv wpo< avrovc, ~ — - Filius est ; natus autem ex ipsa 

€%€<v tov ®eov nXeiwaq oufjoppca; av- Patris mente, sicut voluntas ex 

Opairon; woipexeiv, u/<z itapa^xOrj on mente. Non enitn divisibilis est 

®€oq o virep navzcx. tu ywqra evyv- divina natura, id est, ingeniti 

Bpccwqa-ev. Patris, ut putemus vel divisione, 

1 Unigenitns ergo Deus Sal- vel imminutione substantias ejus 

vator noster, solus a Patre gene- Filium esse progenitum. Sed 

ratus, natura et non adoptione sive mens, sive cor, aut sensus 



ORXGEN, A. D. 240. 



254. Origenis in Joan. tom. V, vol. IV. p. 99. 

The next quotation has nearly the same beginning 
with the last. " The only-begotten Son our Saviour, 
" who alone is born of the Father, is alone the Son 

"by nature, and not by adoption. There is 

u therefore one true God, who only hath immortality, 
" dwelling in the light, which no man can approach 
" unto : the one true God, lest we should believe, 
" that the name of the true God is applicable to 
" many. So also they, who receive the Spirit of 
66 the adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba, 
" Father, (Rom. viii. 15.) are sons of God, but not 
" as the only-begotten Son. For the only-begotten 
"is Son by nature, and always and inseparably Son : 
" but the others, inasmuch as they have taken upon 
" themselves the Son of God, have received power 
" to become the sons of God: who although they 
" are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
66 nor of the will of man, but of God, (John i. 13.) 
" are yet not born of that birth, by which the only- 
" begotten Son is born. Consequently the same 
" difference which there is between the true God, 
" and those to whom it is said, I have said, Ye are 
" gods, (Psalm lxxxii. 6.) exists also between the 
" true Son, and those who are called all of them 
" children of the Most High m ." 

de Deo dicendus est, indiscus- m Unigenitus Filius Salvator 
sus permanens, germen profe- noster, qui solus ex Patre natus 
rens Voluntatis, factus est Ver- est, solus natura et non ado- 

bi Pater ; quod Verbum in sinu ptione Filius est Unus ergo 

Patris requiescens, annunciat est verus Deus, Qui solus habet 
Deum, quem nemo vidit un- &c. Unus et verus Deus, ne 
quam, et revelat Patrem, quem scilicet multis veri Dei nomen 
nemo cognovit nisi ipse solus, convenire credamus. Xta ergo 
his quos ad eum Pater ccelestis et hi, qui accipiunt Spiritum 
attraxerit. adoptionis &c. fill i quidem Dei 



ORIGEN, A.D. MO. 



335 



The two last quotations are preserved by Pam- 
philus in his Defence of Origen n ; and the second is 
adduced as proving, that " the Son was born of the 
" Father, and is of one substance with the Father, 
(C and different from the substance of created things." 

255. Origenis in Joan. torn. VI. vol. IV. p. 152. 
Upon those words of John the Baptist, JBeliold 

the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of 
the world, (i. 29.) Origen observes, " He who of- 
" fered this Lamb for the sacrifice was God in man, 
" the great High Priest, who shews this by saying, 
" No one taketh away my life from me °." (x. 18.) 

256. Origenis in Joan. torn. X. vol. IV. p. 165. 

" As far as relates to words, we may say contrary 
" things concerning our Lord, that he was born of 
" David, and that he was not born of David ; for it 
" is true that he was born of David, as the apostle 
" says, born of the seed of David according to the 
66 flesh, (Rom. i. 3.) if we understand his corporeal 
" part : but this is false, that he was born of the seed 
66 of David, if we understand it of his divine power : 
"for he was declared to be the Son of God with 
" power. And perhaps it is for this reason, that the 
" holy Scriptures sometimes call him a servant, and 
" sometimes Son : a servant, on account of the 



sunt, sed non sicut unigenitus 
Filius. Unigenitus enim natura 
Filius et semper et inseparabili- 
ter Filius est : cseteri vero pro 
eo quod susceperunt in se Fi- 
lium Dei, potestatem accepe- 
runt filii Dei fieri. Qui licet non 
ex sanguinibus, neque ex volun- 
tate &c. non tamen ea nativi- 
tate sunt nati, qua natus est 
unigenitus Filius. Propter quod 
quantam differentiam verus Deus 



habet ad eos, quibus dicitur, 
Ego dixi, dii estis, tantam dif- 
ferentiam habet verus Filius ad 
eos, qui audiunt, Filii Excelsi 
omnes. 

n Cap. V. p. 33, 34. 

0 e O Se Trpotrccyayuv tovrov tov 
apvov eVi TTjV Ovc'iav, 6 ii> tw ccvdpu- 
ncp yjv ®eo£, f^eyaq ap^iepev^, ocrriq 
tovto drjKoi S<a rov, Oi3&e<$ aipa 
k. r. X. 



336 



GRIG EN, A. D. 240. 



" form of a servant, and as the seed of David : but 
" Son of God, on account of his firstborn essence : 
" thus it is true to call him a man, and not a man : 
" a man, with respect to that part which is capable 
" of death : but not a man, with respect to that 
" which is diviner than man. I imagine, that Mar- 
" cion, perverting the sound doctrine which he re- 
" ceived, and denying his birth from Mary, teaches 
" with reference to his divine nature, that he was 
" not born of Mary : and therefore he has dared to 
" erase these places from the Gospel. They seem to 
" be something similar, who deny his humanity, and 
" admit his divinity only : and those, who are just 
" contrary, who circumscribe his divinity, and re- 
66 ceive him as a holy man, the most righteous of all 
" men p." 

257. Origenis in Joan. torn. XX. vol. IV. p. 320. 

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath 
told you the truth, which I have heard from God, 
(viii 40.) " They who seek to kill him, since God 



P Oiov dX'/jBeq elireTv ret, aq icpoq 
rrjv Xe^iv, dvTiKelyeva Ttep) tov Kv- 
plov v\yav 9 oti yeyovev ex Aa/3i§, 
Ka) oi) yeyovev ex Aa/3;§' dX'f\Beq 
yev yap to, yeyovev ex Aaf3)h, aq 
koci o duoo-ToXoq (py&i, Tov yevoyevov 
eK GTcepy.oi.Toq &.aB)h kcctoc o-dpKa, 
el to o-cey.a,TtKov avrov eKXdfioyev' 
\pevheq he avTO tovto el eicl Tr\q 
Beiorepaq hvvdyeccq aKOvoyev, to ye- 
yovevai avTov etc cntepyaToq Aa/3/8* 
aplaB'/] yap vloq &eov ev hvvdyei. 
Ka) Ta%a hid tovto al dyiai npo- 
(pYjreiat oitov yev hovXov, otiov he vlov 
avrov dvayopevovcri' hovXov yev, hid 
t\j hov'Aov yop(p)}v, kou tov eK airep- 
yaroq Aa/3/§* vlov he ®eov, Kara. rrjv 
npcoroTOKov avrov hvvdyiv' ovraq av- 
Tov dXyBeq elite'tv dvQpuitov, Kai ovk 



dvBpoo-wov' dvBpomov Kara to Bavdrov 
heKTiKOV' ovk dvBpcoitov he Kara to 
dvBpui:ov Beiorepov. 'Eyu h' olyai 
Kai rov MapKiava irapeKhe^dyevov 
vyieiq Xoyovq, aBerovvra avrov ttjv eK 
Mapiaq yevecriv, Kara ttjj/ Belav av- 
rov (pvo~iv dirO(pr]vao~Bai, uq dpa ovk 
eyevvr\B'f\ Ik Mapiaq, Ka) hid tovto 
reroXyrjKevai nepiypd^ai rovrovq rovq 
roitovq duo tov evayyeXlov' a irapa- 
Tt\'t\<Tiov neitovBevai (palvovrai ol 
dvaipovvreq avrov rrjv dvBpanoTVjTa, 
Ka) yov/jv avrov ttjv Beor'f\Ta_ itapa- 
he^dyevoi' of re rovroiq evdvrioi, Ka) 
Trjv BeoTfjTa avrov nepiypdipavreq, 
tov he dvBpcoizov wq ayiov, Ka) ht- 
Kaiorarov irdvrav dvBpanrav oyoXo- ^ 
yfjO-avreq. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 337 



" is not killed, even if they do kill him, kill a man. 
" And if they seek to kill him, but have not yet 
" done it, they do not think the person, against 
" whom they are conspiring, is God, and conspire 
" against him as a man. For no one, if he were 
" persuaded that it is God, against whom he is con- 
" spiring, would conspire against him V 

258. Origenis in Joan. torn. XXVIII. 

vol. IV. p. 392. 
It is expedient for us, that one man should die 
for the people, (xi. 50.) Upon these words Origen 
remarks, " Since it was a man who died, but Truth 
" was not a man, nor was Wisdom, and Peace, and 
" Righteousness, and that of which it was written, 
" The Word was God, God the Word and Truth 
" and Wisdom and Righteousness, did not die : for 
" the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of 
" every creature, was incapable of death r ." 

259. Origenis in Joan. torn. XXXII. 



" First of all believe that there is one God, who 
" created and arranged all things, and made all 
" things to be out of nothing : we must also believe, 
" that Jesus Christ is Lord : and we must believe 
" all the truth concerning his divinity and hu- 
" manity : we must also believe in the Holy Ghost s . 



vol. IV. p. 429. 





s There seems to be an allu- 
sion here to the common creeds 
recited by Christians, 



Z 



838 



ORIGEN, A.D. 240. 



" If any one believe that he who was crucified 

" under Pontius Pilate sojourned in the world as 
" something holy and the cause of salvation s but 
" that he did not receive his birth from the Virgin 
" Mary and the Holy Ghost, but from Joseph and 
" Mary, such a man would be deficient in what is 
" most necessary for entire faith. Or on the other 
" hand, if any one should in an erroneous sense ad- 
" mit his divinity, but taking offence at his hu- 
" manity should believe that there was nothing 
" human about him, and that he did not take a 
" substance, such a man would come short of per- 
" feet faith in no small degree : or if on the contrary 
" he admitted what concerns his humanity, but de- 
u nied the substance of the only begotten, and of 
tc the firstborn of every creature, such a man would 
" not be able to say, that he had all faith V The 
reader is again referred to the assertion of Dr. Priest- 
ley, (see p. 99 and 192.) that the Fathers never men- 
tion the Unitarians as heretics : and he extends this 



1 UpZrov itdvrov Tttcrevo-ov on 
etq i<rnv o ®eoq o rd itdvra Krlaaq, 
kou Karapriaaq, Ka) voiy<raq e/c rov 
jttTj ovroq elq to elvai rd itdvra. Xp»7 

kou mcrreveiv on Kvpioq 3 lrj<rovq 
Hpurroq, Ka) ndcy ttj 'nep) avrov 
Kara, rrjv Beorrjra, Ka) rrjv dvBpco- 
noTvjTa, akvfietq,' §e7 Se Ka) elq to 

djLOV 7IlO-T€V€tV UveVfAa. 7J TTCfcAlV 

el nq Tcia-Tevccv on in) Hovrtov Ut- 
'hdrov aravpcoBe)q lepov n xpypa Ka) 
acorripiov rep Koo~fA(p eTriSeS'/ypj/cej/' 
d\X' qvk €K ttapBevov ryq Mapiaq, Ka) 
dylov Uvevixaroq rrjv yevecrtv dvel~hf\- 
<pev, dXh' ef 'Iwctj^ Ka) Mapiaq, 
Ka) rovrcjj av "kelitoi elq to ndaav 
e%eiv rv)v iricrnv rd dvayKaiorara. 
UdXiv re av el ryv y,ev Beorrftd riq 
avrov TtapeKbeyfiLTo, ttj §e dvBpaito- 



ty)ti itpoaKoitrav /AvjSey dvBpwTttvov 
inep) avrov Kurrevoi yeyovevat, vj vno- 
arao-iv elkycpevai' Ka) rovra dv \el- 
noi npoq ndaav rv]v Ttlariv ov rd tk- 
yjtvra. ,X H el dvditaXiv rd {/.ev irep) 
avrov avBpcoTtiva itpoaloiro, rrjv Se 
VTZoo-raaiv rov povoyevovq, Ka) npa- 
roroKOv ndtryq Krlcreaq dBeroi, Kai 
ovroq ov hvvairo Xeyeiv irao-av e%eiv 
r^v <nl<rnv. In the Benedictine 
edition, napeKbe%ono is translated 
admittat : and at p. 165. irapeK- 
"beldpevov is translated respuen- 
tem which meanings contra- 
dict each other, and are neither 
of them right : irapeK^exeo-Oai is 
to receive a thing, but in a 
wrong sense: or to pervert that 
which is received. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



339 



remark in particular to Origen u , but he takes no 
notice whatever of the present quotation, in which, 
if words have any meaning, the fundamental tenets 
of the Unitarians are condemned as heretical. 

The Homilies of Origen upon the Epistle to the 
Romans supply some strong testimonies to the di- 
vinity of Christ : but they have only come down to 
us in the Latin translation of Rufinus, which,, ac- 
cording to his own statement, differed considerably 
from the original : and wherever any of the Greek 
has been preserved, we find this to be remarkably 
the case. I shall therefore not bring forward any of 
these testimonies : but they may be found in pages 
541, 573, 599, 612, 624. 

260. Origenis in Epist. ad Gal, vol. IV. p. 690. 
The following passage is preserved by Pamphilus 
in his Defence of Origen, p. 35. " From those words 
" of the Apostle, Paul, an apostle, not of men, 
" neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, (i. 1.) we 
" may plainly understand, that Christ Jesus was not 

" a man, but a divine nature. because he knew 

" him to be of a higher nature, he therefore said that 
" he was not called by man x ." And shortly after 
upon those words, But I certify you, brethren, 
(i. 11.) he says, " Now observe what he writes : be- 
" cause any one who connects this passage with the 
" former may easily understand and prove to those 
" who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, and pro- 
" nounce him to be a mere man, that Jesus Christ is 

a History of early Opinions, tura. Non enim si homo esset, 

vol. I. p. 292. dixisset Paulus hoc quod ait, 

x Ex eo quod dixit apostolus, Paulus &c. Quern utique 

Paulus &c. manifeste datur in- quia sciebat exceilentioris esse 

telligi quia non erat homo Chris- naturae, propterea se dixit non 

tus Jesus, sed erat divina na- assumptum esse per hominem* 

z 2 



340 



OBIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" not a mere man, but God, the Son of God. For 
" the apostle says, that the Gospel which I have 
"preached unto you is not after men, but after 
" Jesus Christ. He therefore evidently shews, that 
" Jesus Christ is not a man : but if he is not man, 
" undoubtedly he is God : and further he will be 
" nothing else but God and man y." 
261. Origenis in Epist. ad Titum, vol. IV. p. 695. 

Origen having given his definition of a heretic 
proceeds to point out some particular heresies. " We 
" must have the same opinion of him, who conceives 
" any false notion of our Lord Jesus Christ ; either 
" according to those, who say that he was born of 
" Joseph and Mary, like the Ebionites and Valenti- 
" nians z : or according to those, who deny him to be 
" the firstborn and God of the whole creation, and 

" the Word, and Wisdom &c. but who say that 

" he is a mere man. Those also, who say, that 

" the Lord Jesus was a man before known and pre- 
" ordained, who before his advent in the flesh did 
" not exist substantially and properly ; but that be- 
" ing born a mere man he had in himself only the 
" divinity of the Father ; they cannot, without dan- 



y Adverte ergo quid scribit, 
quia convenienter quis et hsec 
adjungens prioribus intelligere 
potent, et ostendere his qui ne- 
gant deitatem Jesu Christi, sed 
hominem eum solum pronun- 
ciant, quod non est homo, sed 
Deus, Dei Filius Jesus Christus. 
Sic enim dicit apostolus, Quia 
Evangelium &c, Evidenter ergo 
ostendit quia Christus Jesus non 
est homo : si autem non est ho- 
mo, sine dubio Deus est: imonon 
aliud erit nisi Deus et homo. 



1 This must be a mistake, 
since the Valentinians did not 
believe that Jesus had a real 
body, or was born at all. We 
perhaps ought to read Cerin- 
thians. The commentators have 
not noticed the error : but a 
similar insertion of the name of 
Valentinus is pointed out by 
bishop Bull in Jerom's work 
against Helvidius, c. 17. vol. II. 
p. 225. (Def. Fid, Nic. II. 
3-7-) 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



341 



" ger, be reckoned in the number of the church : as 
" those also, who with more superstition than reli- 
" gion, that they may not appear to make two Gods, 
" nor on the other hand to deny the divinity of the 
" Saviour, assert that there is oue and the same ex- 
" istence of the Father and Son, i. e. that one hypo- 
" stasis exists, which receives two names according 
" to the difference of causes ; i. e. one person an- 
" swering to two names : and these are called in La- 
66 tin Patripassians a ." 

It might be thought at first, that Origen here 
espoused the Arian doctrine of dividing the sub- 
stance of the Father and the Son. It is true, that 
he condemns the doctrine as heretical which taught 
that there was only one hypostasis : but we must re- 
member, that hypostasis, which was used by later 
writers for substance, was taken in the time of Ori- 
gen to signify person : and in this passage he alludes 
to the Patripassian heresy, (to which the Sabellian 
was nearly allied,) of confounding the persons of the 
Father and the Son. In his work against Celsus b , 



a Sed nunc unum atque idem 
credendum est etiam de eo qui 
de Domino nostro Jesu Christo 
falsi aliquid senserit, sive se- 
cundum eos qui dicunt eum ex 
Joseph et Maria natum, sicut 
sunt. Ebionitse et Valentiniani : 
sive secundum eos qui primo- 
genitum eum negant, et totius 
creaturse Deum, et Verbum et 

Sapientiam sed hominem 

solum eum dicentes. Sed et 

eos qui hominem dicunt Domi- 
mira Jesum praecognitum et 
praedestinatum, qui ante adven- 
tum carnalem substantialiter et 
proprie non extiterit, sed quod 
homo natus Patris solam in se 



habuerit deitatem, ne illos qui- 
dem sine periculo esse eccle- 
siae numero sociari : sicut et il- 
los qui superstitiose magis quam 
religiose, uti ne videantur duos 
Deos dicere, neque rursum ne- 
gare Salvatoris deitatem, unam 
eandemque subsistentiam Patris 
ac Filii asseverant, id est, duo 
quidem nomina secundum di- 
versitatem causarum recipien- 
tem, unam tamen hypostasin 
subsistere, id est, unam per- 
sonam duobus nominibus sub- 
jacentem, qui Latine Patripas- 
siani appellanttir. 

b L. VIII. 12. p. 750. eva civ 

z S 



342 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



he expressly calls those persons heretics, who deny 
that the Father and Son are two hypostases ; and 
he adds, " We worship the Father and the Son, who 
" are two in hypostasis." In these places hypostasis 
is used for person. The word in its proper signifi- 
cation is applied to any thing which has an indivi- 
dual and substantial existence : thus we may speak 
of the hypostasis of man ; by which we may mean 
either the substance of man as different from the 
substance of any other animal, taken generically ; or 
we may mean the substance of any individual man, 
e. g. Homer or Cicero. In this latter sense the word 
comes to signify person, always retaining the idea 



kou tov vlov Bepaitevo^ev ®prj- 

<TK€V0[A€V OVV TQV maTepa TTjq dXr t - 

Belaq, kou tov vlov t\v ahr^Beiav, ovra 
Zvo t5j vnoaTocaei nptzyfAocra, ei> Se 
T7j o/xovoia, kou tJi avpipavla, KOU Ty 
TctvTOTvjTi tov ^ovK-^aroq. It ap- 
pears that Origen even used ov- 
a-la in the sense of person : thus 
we find him saying — d hepoq 
kolt ovalav kou vizoKelpevoc, (1. vhq- 
Kelpevov) iariv o vlo$ tqv itaTpoc,. 
(de Oratione, 15. vol. I. p. 222.) 
in which he meant to say, that 
the Son differed in personal in- 
dividuality from the Father. 
That this is the sense in which 
he used the word ova-la, is plain 
from the following passage, 
where he speaks of heretics who 
conceived of the Logos as of a 
word uttered by the mouth, 
and thus giving no substantial 
existence to the Son — km) Kara 
tovto vitoaTaaiv avTcp ov ^tboaaiv, 
oj5§6 ovalav avrov aacp'/jvl^ovaiv, ov- 
Sewcu <pa[/.h TOidvZe, y Toiuvfte, aW 
07r«s tcot£ ova lav. (in Joan. torn. I. 
23. vol. IV. p. 26.) That the 
word ova la was applied to the 



Son to express his real, substan- 
tial existence, was also allowed 
by the Semi-Arians : see Epi- 
phanius, vol. I. p. 860 : and the 
doctrine of Origen is still fur- 
ther declared in the following 
passage, where he speaks of a 

heretic, hoy^ocrl^uv p<j§e ovalav 
tivo, lolav i(peaTcivou rov dylov 
Y\vevjAarQt; iripav r.apa rov itarepa 

Ka) tov vlov. but he says of him- 
self, Vj^dq pevToiye Tpdc, vTtoaTa- 
aeiq iteiBo^evoi Tvyy^dveiv, tov nctre- 
pa, Ka) tov vlov, koi to ayiov Tlvev- 
pa. (in Joan. torn. II. 6. p. 61 .) 
Dr. Priestley was incorrect, when 
he asserts that Origen expressly 
said, that the Father and the Son 
were different in their essence. 
(Hist, of early Opinions, vol. 
II. p. 353.) The essence of the 
Father and the Son was not the 
subject of controversy in Ori- 
gen's days, but the personality 
or individuality of the Son, 
which was destroyed on the 
Patripassian and Sabellian hy- 
potheses. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



343 



of individuality and substantiality 0 . And in this 
sense most of the Fathers used the term, who wrote 
before the council of Nice. 

But since it might also be applied to God, and 
mean either the substance of God, i. e. His dis- 
tinctive essence, which separated Him from every 
other being ; or the individual person whom we call 
God ; there arose an ambiguity in the term ; and 
persons speaking of the Trinity might say either 
that there were three hypostases, meaning three 
individual persons, each of whom had a substantial 
existence, or that there was one hypostasis, mean- 
ing that there was one substantial mode of being, 
which was common to the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. Hence some persons were branded with the 
name of heretic, though they were only guilty of a 
confusion of terms : and when it is said, that Sabel- 
lius held one hypostasis in opposition to the church, 
which held three hypostases, the statement is calcu- 
lated to mislead, because the same word is taken in 
two senses. Sabellius believed that there was one 
substance, meaning th.at there was only one person, 
who was substantially God : thus using hypostasis 
in each of its senses. But when the orthodox party 
said that there were three hypostases, they did not 
mean to deny that there was only one substantial 
essence which was God, but they meant that there 
were three persons, who, though individually and 
numerically distinct, were united in this one sub- 
stance d . 

c Thus the catholics declared substantial emanation or qua- 
the Son to be IvwroVraTOf, or lity. See p. 338, note and 
icpea-raq, meaning that he was a p. r23, note 
real person ; the Sabellians held d Dr. Priestley falsely accuses 
him to be avvao<rtaroq, an un- the councils of Antioch and 

z 4 



344 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



What Sabellius meant by hypostasis, imo<rra<rts, 
later writers expressed by ovala ; and the orthodox 
sense of the term was less equivocally conveyed by 
7rpo(Tco7rov, person. But the Latin writers contributed 
to increase the confusion, by translating both ovala 
and liroaraa-ig by the same word substantia^ substance. 
The Latins, from their dread of Arianism, would 
never say that there were three hypostases, because 
it sounded as if they said, that there were three sub- 
stances : and the Greeks had an equal dislike to 
acknowledging one hypostasis, for fear of counte- 
nancing Sabellianism, which denied that there were 
three persons e . At length however all parties began 
to perceive, that they were taking offence at a mere 
word : and in the council of Alexandria, which was 
held in the year 362, it was wisely agreed, that the 
word hypostasis might be used in either sense with- 
out impeaching the orthodoxy of him who used it f . 
262. Origenis in Epist. ad I Feb. vol. IV. p. 697. 

The eternity of the Son is clearly expressed in the 
following passage, which is adduced by Pamphilus 
in his Defence of Origen, as shewing that the Father 
was not before the Son, but that the Son is coeternal 
with the Father. " What else can we think eternal 
" light to be, than God the Father, who never ex- 
" isted when there was light without brightness be- 
" longing to it ? For light cannot be conceived as 

Nice of contradicting each other e Ata tovto vitaa-Tocc-eu; ot ava- 

concerning the consubstantiality toXiko) \tyovo-w, I'va ra? Ihor^Tccq 

of Father and Son. They only tSv npoo-Sitav vcpearcoa-ai; kou v-nap- 

differed in their use of the word %ova-aq yvapl<ru<riv. Semi-Arian- 

hypostasis. History of early orum Confessio apud Epiphan. 

Opinions, vol. II. p. 337. This Hser. LXXIII. 17. vol. I. p. 

apparent difference is well ill us- 863. 

trated by Athanasius, ad Antio- f See Bull Defens. sect. II. 

chenses, §. 6. vol. I. p. 773, 777. 9. 1 1, &c. Waterland, II. p. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



345 



" ever existing without its brightness. If this be true, 
u there never was a time when the Son was not a 
" Son. But he was not, as we have said of eternal 
" light, unborn, lest we should seem to maintain 
" two principles of light ; but like the brightness of 
" unborn light, having that same light as its begin- 
" ning and source, being born from it : but there 
" never was a time when it was nots." We may 
observe, that this passage denies the fundamental 
tenet of Arianism, that there was a time when 
Christ was not. h Compare Dionysius N°. 300. 
26S. Origenis in Epist. ad Heb. vol. IV. p. 697. 
" We ask those who are unwilling to confess the 
" Son of God to be God, how the human nature 
" alone, if it had nothing exalted in itself, nor any 
" thing of divine substance, could receive as an in- 
" heritance every principality, and all power and 
if authority, and be preferred to, and placed over all 
" those things by the Father. Hence it appears 
" certain, that he, who receives the inheritance, 



247. IV. p. 415. Suicer in v. 

vitoGiamq. 

s Lux autem seterna quid 
aliud est sentiendum, quam 
Deus Pater, qui nunquam fuit 
quando luxquidem esset, splen- 
dor vero ei non adesset ? Neque 
enim lux sine splendore suo un- 
quam intelligi potest. Quod si 
verum est, nunquam est quando 
Filius non Filius fuit. Erat au- 
tem, non sicut de seterna luce 
diximus, innatus, ne duo prin- 
cipia lucis videamur inducere ; 
sed sicut ingenitse lucis splen- 
dor, ipsam illam lucem initium 
habens ac fontem, natus quidem 
ex ipsa, sed non erat quando 
non erat. 



h It is singular that Philo 
Judaeus furnishes a refutation 
of this tenet ; at least he shews 
that to say this of Christ, and 
yet to call him God, would 
have implied a contradiction in 
terms. He is speaking of idola- 
try, and says, that the holiest of 
all commandments is p^ev tZv 
tov KQcrfAOv [Aepav avroKpa-vrj 6eov 
VTzoXapficeveiv elvai' kou yap yeyove' 
yeveaa; Be (pQopaq Kav npovola 

tov TreTrotYjKOTCx; a.TtaBa.vccTi^rjra.i, kou 

VjV 7T0T6 XpOVOC. QT6 OVK VjV OeOV $6, 

itpozepov (A€v ovk ovra, Ka\ a-no tivq$ 
y^povov yevopevov kou [AT] htaiavi^ovra 

Xeyeiv ov OepiTov. De decern Ora- 
culis, vol. II. p. 190. 



346 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



" must be more exalted, and he must be so in kind, 
" and in species, and substance, and existence or 
" nature, and in every way whatsoever 1 ." 

264. Origenis in Epist. adUeb. vol IV. p. 697. 

Origen illustrates the con substantiality of the Son 
with the Father, and his proceeding from the Fa- 
ther, by a comparison with vapour proceeding from 
any substance, " So that we may conceive in a man- 
" ner, how Christ, who is Wisdom, after the like- 
" ness of that vapour which proceeds from any cor- 
<c poreal substance, rises like a sort of vapour out of 
" the power of God ; thus also Wisdom, which pro- 
" ceeds from him, is generated from the very sub- 
" stance of God ; and thus, after the likeness of a 
" corporeal efflux, he is said to be the efflux of the 
" glory of the Almighty, pure and unmixed. Both 
" which likenesses most plainly shew, that there is 
" a communion of substance between the Son and 
" the Father. For an efflux seems to be of one 
" substance with that body, from which it is an ef- 
" flux or vapour k ." 

1 Interrogamus igitur eos quos 
piget confiteri Deum esse Filium 
Dei, quomodo poterat sola hu- 
mana natura nihil in se habens 
eximium, neque aliquid divina? 
substantia?, hsereditatem capere 
omnem principatum, et omnem 
potestatem, et virtutem, et his 
omnibus praeferri ac preeponi a 
Patre. Unde rectum videtur 
quod prsestantior esse debeat is 
qui haereditatem capit, et genere 
utique, et specie, et substantia, 
et subsistentia vel natura, atque 
omnibus quibusque modis debet 
esse prsestantior. 

k ut vel ex parte aliqua 

inteiligere possimus quomodo 
Christus, qui est Sapientia, se- 



cundum similitudinem ejus va- 
poris qui de substantia aliqua 
corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse 
ut quidam vapor exoritur de 
virtute ipsius Dei : sic et sa- 
pientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa 
Dei substantia generatur. Sic 
nihilominus et secundum simili- 
tudinem corporalis aporrhaese, 
esse dicitur aDorrhsea glorise 
Omnipotentis pura qusedam et 
sincera. Quae utrseque similitu- 
dines manifestissime ostendunt 
communionem substantia? esse 
Filio cum Patre. Apon haea enim 
ofAoova-ioq videtur, id est, unius 
substantia? cum illo corpore ex 
quo est vel aporrhaea vel vapor. 



ORIGEN, A. D. 240. 



347 



This passage, which is adduced by Pamphilus, 
p. 33. in proof of Origen's orthodoxy, may easily be 
conceived to have been one of those, which his ene- 
mies might misinterpret and turn against him. It 
would have been well indeed, if he had adhered to 
his own excellent observation given at N°. 236. and 
not inquired into the mysterious generation of the 
Son of God. But this passage, taken in conjunction 
with his other works, can never be said to prove 
that his opinions were heretical : in whatever sense 
we explain them, he cannot have been an Unitarian. 
We may compare the doctrine contained in it with 
what he says in vol. I. p. 752. where he calls Christ 
" the vapour of the power of God, and pure efflux 
" of the glory of the Almighty, the effulgence of 
" eternal light, and unspotted mirror of the energy 
" of God." The two expressions, vapour of the 
power of God, and efflux of the glory of the Al- 
mighty, are taken from the apocryphal Book of 
Wisdom, vii. 25. and Dionysius of Alexandria, in 
illustration of the generation of Christ as the Word, 
observes, that a word is an efflux of the mind, 
p. 93. 

I cannot help in this place making one remark 
upon the Homilies of Origen. Dr. Priestley labours 
at great length in his History of early Opinions, 
to prove, that though the clergy and most of the 
learned in early times were Trinitarians, yet the 
unlettered multitude, i. e. the great body of Chris- 
tians, were Unitarians, and did not believe in the di- 
vinity or preexistence of Christ. He extends this 
remark even to the time of the council of Nice ; and 
though he acknowledges, that no work of any Unita- 
rian writer has been preserved to us, he draws his 



348 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



inference from the cautious manner in which the 
doctrines of Christ's divinity were advanced by such 
writers as Tertullian and Origen \ He brings one 
or two passages from these Fathers, in which he 
thinks that they describe the common people as 
being much shocked at the Trinitarian doctrines m - 
It is not my intention to examine his interpretation 
of these passages : but he should have remembered, 
that the Homilies of Origen were addressed to the 
people at large. These Homilies are said to have 
amounted to a thousand in number : the extracts 
given from them will shew, and Dr. P. himself ad- 
mits, that Origen in his writings asserted the divin- 
ity of Christ : how then can it be imagined, that 
Origen held a doctrine which he knew to be dif- 
ferent from that of the laity and the unlearned, if 
he publicly preached this doctrine in all his Ho- 
milies ? 

Cyprianus. A. D. 250. 

Thascius Csecilius Cyprianus was by birth an 
African. His parents were heathens ; and he was 
converted to Christianity in the year 246 ; previous 
to which time he had delivered lectures upon rheto- 
ric. In the year following his conversion he was 
ordained presbyter ; and his reputation was so great, 
that the see of Carthage becoming vacant in 248, 
he was chosen almost unanimously by the wish of 
the clergy and people to succeed to the bishopric. 
His election was however opposed by five presbyters, 
whose turbulent conduct caused him considerable 
trouble and vexation. 

Cyprian soon found, what indeed he might have 

1 III. p. 274. 292. ~ m lb. p. 292. 318, 19. 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



349 



been prepared to expect, that the office of a Chris- 
tian bishop was not one of ease and security. The 
Decian persecution began about the year 249 ; and 
the fury of it compelled Cyprian to retire for a while 
from Carthage. He returned in 251, but dissensions 
within the church soon succeeded to troubles from 
without. In that same year he presided at a coun- 
cil, which was convened to decide upon the conduct 
of those persons, who, during persecution, had tem- 
porarily denied their faith. In 252 another council 
was held upon the same subject ; in each of which 
Cyprian supported the lenient side. 

Between that year and 256 three other councils 
were held to consider the question, whether baptism 
administered by heretics was valid, i. e. whether per- 
sons so baptized ought to be rebaptized, when they 
came over to the catholic church. Cyprian was de- 
cidedly of opinion, that such heretical baptisms were 
invalid ; and the acts of the last council are extant 
among his works. 

In 252 a terrible pestilence succeeded to the 
other calamities, which fell upon the African Chris- 
tians ; and Cyprian, among other duties which he 
fulfilled at that trying time, composed his book de 
Mortalitate. In 257, the persecution, which was 
countenanced by the emperor Valerian, again com- 
pelled the good bishop to leave his flock, and he 
was banished to Curubis. The same enemies who 
banished him, shortly afterwards recalled him : but 
it was only to bestow upon him that crown of mar- 
tyrdom, after which he had long and anxiously 
aspired. He was beheaded on the 14th of Septem- 
ber, 258. 

Many of his letters are extant, beside some short 



850 



CYPRXANUS, A. D. 250. 



treatises upon different subjects ; and the authority 
of Cyprian will always be appealed to by those, who 
think that the unity of the church is of vital interest 
to religion, by tending to preserve among its mem- 
bers a pure and uncorrupt faith, as well as brotherly 
love and concord. 

If the question of Christ's divinity were to depend 
upon his receiving the title of God by the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, the testimony of Cyprian alone 
might be sufficient; for in most places, where he 
mentions the name of Christ, he calls him our Lord 
and God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ: nor does 
he do this in controversy only, or where it might be 
suspected that he introduced the name of God on 
purpose to support a doctrine of his own ; but it 
was evidently his usual habit of speaking and writ- 
ing : he called Christ God, as habitually as we call 
him Lord or Saviour. 

The places in which he does this are so nume- 
( rous and so very plain, that I shall lay them before 

the reader in one connected series, without any in- 
troduction or separate comment upon each : and, 
having read them, each person will be able to answer 
for himself, whether Cyprian really believed or no 
that Jesus Christ was God : and the meaning which 
he attached to the word God may perhaps appear 
more evident, if we bear in mind the following de- 
claration, which he makes when he is condemning 
the worship of false gods ; " There is therefore one 
" God, the Lord of all : for that sublimity cannot 
" have a companion, since it alone possesses all 
<c power 11 ." 

n Unus igitur omnium Do- ilia sublimitas potest habere 
minus est Deus. Neque enim consortein, cum sola omnem 



CYPRIANUS, A,D. 250. 



351 



265. " We have an Advocate and Intercessor for 
" our sins, Jesus Christ our Lord and God °." 

266. " For what more glorious or happy privi- 
" lege can any one receive from divine grace, than 
" in the midst of his executioners, in death itself, to 
" confess the Lord God p ?" 

267- " We acknowledge, that we have offered 
" and still offer, without ceasing, the greatest thanks 
" to God the Father Almighty, and to His Christ 
" our Lord and God V 

268. " Our Lord and God practised whatever he 
" taught V 

269. " What will be the glory and how vast the 
"joy to be admitted to see God, to be honoured 
" with receiving the delight of salvation and ever- 
" lasting light together with Christ your Lord 
" God s !" 

270. " but to strive with all our might, 

66 that we may conciliate Christ our Judge and 
4 ' Lord and God by our obedience V 

271. " If we cannot persuade some persons, so 



teneat potestatem. De Idolo- 
rum Vanitate, p. 227. 

0 Habemus Advocatum et 
Deprecatorem pro peccatis no- 
stris Jesum Christum Dominum 
et Deuni nostrum. Ep. VII. 

P- '5- . 

p Quid enim gloriosius qmdve 

felicius ulli hominum poterit ex 

divina dignatione contingere, 

quam inter ipsos carnifices in 

ipso interitu confiteri Dominum 

Deum ? Ep.XXVI. p. 35. 

( J Et egisse nos et agere ma- 

ximas gratias sine cessatione 

profitemur Deo Patri omnipo- 

tenti et Christo ejus Domino et 



Deo nostro. Ep. XL VII. p. 61. 

r Dominus et Deus noster 
quicquid docuit et fecit. Ep. 
LVI. p. 92. 

s Quae erit gloria et quanta 
lsetitia admitti ut Deum videas, 
honorari ut cum Christo Do- 
mino Deo tuo salutis ac lucis 
seternse gaudium capias! Ep. 
LVI. p. 94. 

* — sed quibus possumus vi- 
rions elaborare et velociter ge- 
rere ut Christum Judicem et 
Dominum et Deum nostrum 
promereamur obsequiis nostris. 
Ep. LX. p. 99, 100. 



352 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



" as to make them please Christ, let us at least, as 
" far as is in our power, please Christ our Lord and 
" God by observing his precepts u ." 

272. " Yet since some either through ignorance 
" or simplicity, when they consecrate the Lord's 
" cup and give it to the people, do not do that, 
" which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder 
" and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught x — — " 

273. " What is dearer than he, who, that you 
" might not endure any thing reluctantly, first suf- 
" fered what he taught ? What is sweeter than he, 
" who, when he is our Lord and God, yet makes the 
" man who suffers for him a joint heir of the king- 
" dom of heaven y ?" 

274. " For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is 
" himself the high priest of God the Father z " 

275. " Even our Lord himself, Jesus Christ, our 
" King and Judge and God, observed the honour 
" due to high priests up to the day of his passion a ." 

276. " But what blindness of mind is that, what 
" depravity, to refuse to acknowledge the unity of 
" faith, which comes from God the Father and is 
" delivered by Jesus Christ our Lord and God b ?" 

u Si quibusdam suadere non minem regni coelestis efficit co- 

possumus ut eos Christo pla- haeredem ? De Laude Martyrii, 

cere faciamus, nos certe, quod p. 349. 

nostrum est, Christo Domino et z Nam si Jesus Christus Do- 

Deo nostro, praecepta ejus ser- minus et Deus noster ipse est 

vando, placeamus. Ep. LXII. summus sacerdos Dei Patris — 

p. 104. Ep. LXII. p. 109. 

x non hoc faciunt quod a Dominus etiam noster ipse 

Jesus Christus Dominus et Jesus Christus Rex et Judex et 

Deus noster sacrificii hujus au- Deus noster usque ad passionis 

ctor et doctor fecit et docuit — diem servavit honorem pontifi- 

Ep. LXIII. p. 104. cibus et sacerdotibus. Ep. LXV. 

y Quid eo dulcius, qui cum p. 113. 

ipse sit Deus noster et Domi- b Quae vero est animi caeci- 

nus tamen patientem pro se ho- tas, quae pravitas, fidei unitatem 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



353 



277. " and how can he say, that remission 

" of sins is there given in the name of Jesus Christy 
" where the Father, and Christ the Lord God, are 
" blasphemed 0 ?" 

278. " Cyprian to Nemesianus, Felix, &c. &c. 
" and to the other brethren condemned to the mines, 
" martyrs of God the Father Almighty, and of Jesus 
" Christ our Lord and God d " 

279- " Why do we weep and grieve for our de- 
" parting friends, as if they were lost, when Christ 
" himself our Lord and God advises us, and says, 
" I am the resurrection &c. e " 

That Cyprian gave the title of God to Jesus 
Christ, cannot be denied, after these numerous in- 
stances in which he applies it to him. Neither 
surely can it be said, that he believed Christ to be 
God in a secondary or figurative sense, by delegation 
or by office. If he did not use the term God, when 
applied to Jesus Christ, in the same sense which he 
attached to it, when applied to the Father, there is 
an end of all certainty of interpretation ; and we 
must give up that established rule of criticism, that 
the author's meaning in the use of any word is to be 
illustrated by his usual style and by the context. 
When Cyprian speaks of" God the Father Almighty, 
u and His Christ our Lord and God," of " the faith 

de DeoPatre et de Jesu Christi d Cyprianus &c. martyribus 

Domini et Dei nostri traditione Dei Patris omnipotentis et Jesu 

venientem nolle cognoscere ? Christi Domini et Dei Conser- 

Ep. LXXIV. p. 139. vatoris nostri seternam salutem. 

c et illic in nomine Ep. LXXVIL p. 158. 

Jesu Christi dicat remissionem e ipso Christo Domino 

peccatorum dari, ubi blasphe- et Deo nostro monente ac di- 

matur in Patrem et in Domi- cente &c. De Mortalitate, p. 

num Deum Christum? Ep. 235. 
LXXIV. p. 140. 



354 



CYPRIANUS, A.D. 250. 



" which came from God the Father, and delivered 
" by Jesus Christ our Lord and God," of " the mar- 
" tyrs of God the Father Almighty and of Jesus 
" Christ our Lord and God," we can never imagine 
that in the same sentence the word God is always 
to be taken in two different senses. 

Or when we find him using these expressions, 
" Jesus Christ our Lord and God," " Christ our 
" Judge and Lord and God," " Jesus Christ our 
" King and Judge and Lord," are we to be told 
that Christ is indeed literally our Lord and Judge 
and King, but that he is not literally our God ? We 
can never suppose that Cyprian was thus ignorant 
of the meaning of words, or careless in the use of 
them. That Christ is truly and not figuratively our 
Lord, that this is the title peculiarly belonging to 
him, even more distinctively than to God the Fa- 
ther, is undoubted, both from the works of the apo- 
stles, and from the universal practice of writers of 
every age. That Christ is to be really and literally 
our Judge, that it is the Son and not the Father, 
who will judge all men at the last day, can never be 
denied, if we believe the declarations of the apostles 
and of our Lord himself. Nor is it true to say, that 
Christ is figuratively our King. When the Israel- 
ites first took possession of the land of Canaan, the 
Almighty was as much their King, and His word 
was as much the law of the land, as if He had sat 
upon a throne, and been visibly consulted by His 
subjects. Nor are we less the subjects of Jesus 
Christ. Though he differs from an earthly king, 
because his throne is not on earth but in heaven, 
yet his word is our law, and it is our duty to obey 
him, not figuratively, but literally. If Christ be not 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



355 



literally our King, he is not literally our Lord arid 
J udge : for these latter titles are also of human 
origin ; and we form our notion of their meaning 
from human customs and human powers : but ex- 
cepting only the difference between a visible and in- 
visible tribunal, we believe in the fullest sense of the 
expression, and indeed much more fully than the 
human application of the term admits, that Jesus 
Christ is our Lord and Judge and King. It fol- 
lows therefore, by every rule of interpretation, that 
Cyprian, who couples with these titles that of God, 
must also have intended, in the fullest and most un- 
limited sense of the expression, that Jesus Christ is 
God. 

The following instances are perhaps still more 
express, and may admit a few remarks. 

280. Cypriani Epist. LXXIII. p. 133. 

This letter was written by Cyprian to Jubaianus, 
an African bishop, upon the question, whether bap- 
tism administered by heretics was valid. It is well 
known that Cyprian decided in the negative ; and 
among other reasons for coming to this conclusion, 
he says, " If any one may be baptized by heretics, 
" he may also obtain remission of sins. If he has 
" obtained remission of sins, he is also sanctified and 
" made the temple of God : if he is sanctified and 
" made the temple of God, I ask, of what God ? If 
" you say, of the Creator, he cannot, because he does 
" not believe in him. If you say, of Christ, neither 
" can that man be the temple of Christ, who denies 
" Christ to be God f ." 

f Si peccatorum remissam qusero cujus Dei ? Si Creatoris, 
consecutus est, et sanctificatus non potuit, quia in eum non 
est, et templum Dei factus est, credidit. Si Christi, nec hujus 

a a 2 



356 CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



281. Cypriani de Oratione Dominica p. 204. 
It is only necessary to observe the title of this 

treatise, to understand that the following expression 
alludes to Christ, " Let us pray therefore, my be^ 
" loved brethren, as God our Master has taught 
" us s." 

282. Cypriani de Oratione Dominica p. 206. 
The same may be said of the following passage : 

" God, the Master of peace and concord, who hath 
" taught us unity, hath thus wished one person to 
" pray for all, in the same manner that he himself 
" bears us all in one h ." 

283. Cypriani de Idolorum Vanitate p. 228. 

" This is the Power of God, this His Word 1 and 
" Wisdom and Glory. It is he, who infuses him- 
" self into the Virgin, the Holy Spirit puts on flesh, 
" God is united with man. This is our God ; this 
" is Christ, who being the Mediator of both puts on 
" man, that he may lead him to the Father. Christ 
< " wished to be what man is, that man also might be 

cc what Christ is. The Jews also knew that Christ 
6i was to come, for he was always announced to 
" them by the warnings of their prophets. But 
" when his twofold advent was declared, one which 
cf would fulfil the duty and example of a man, 
" the other which would prove him to be God, 
" by not understanding the first advent, which was 
66 obscured in suffering and is gone by, they only 

fieri potuit templum, qui negat Magister, qui docuit unitatem, 

Deum Christum. Ep. LXXIIL sic orare unum pro omnibus 

p. 133. voluit, quomodo in uno omnes 

s Oremus itaque, fratres di- ipse portavit. 
lectissimi, sicut Magister Deus 5 I have translated Ratio, 

docuit. Word, considering it to be the 

h Deus pacis et concordias same with Logos. 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



357 



" believe the other, which will be manifest in 
" power k ." 

284. Cypriani de Bono Patientice p. 248. 
Having mentioned our Lord's exhortation to bro- 
therly love, he says, " Nor did Jesus Christ our God 
" and Lord merely teach this in words, he also ful- 
(i filled it in deed : and because he said that he came 
" down for this purpose, that he might do the will 
" of his Father, among other miracles of his power, 
<e by which he gave tokens of divine majesty, he 
" also preserved his Father's patience by continued 
u suffering. In short all his acts, from his very first 
" coming, are marked by accompanying patience, 
" that in the first place the Son of God came down 
" from that heavenly height to earth, and did not de- 
" spise putting on human flesh, and, though he was 
" not himself a sinner, to bear the sins of others. 
" In the meantime, laying aside his immortality, he 
" suffers himself even to become mortal, that the in- 



k Hie est Virtus Dei, hie 
Ratio, hie Sapientia ejus et Glo- 
ria. Hie in Virginem illabi- 
tur, carnem Spiritus Sanctus in- 
duitur, Deus cum homine mi- 
scetur. Hie Deus noster, hie 
Christus est, qui Mediator du- 
orum hominem induit, quem 
perducat ad Patrem. Quod 
homo est esse Christus voluit, 
ut et homo possit esse quod 
Christus est. Sciebant et Ju- 
dsei Christum esse venturum. 
Nam hie illis semper prophetis 
admonentibus annuntiabatur. 
Sed significato duplici ejus ad- 
ventu, uno qui exercitio et ex- 
em plo hominis fungeretur, al- 
tero qui Deum fateretur, non 
intelligendo primum adventum, 
qui in passione preecessit occul- 



tus, unura tantum credunt qui 
erit in potestate manifestos. 

Instead of carnem Spiritus 
Sanctus induitur, some read car- 
nem Spiritu Sancto cooper ante 
induitur. Bishop Bull shews, 
that the Son is often called 
Holy Spirit. Defens. II. io. 2. 
as does the editor of Lactantius, 
II. 9. p. 143. note 8„and this ob- 
servation removes the seeming 
contradiction between Cyprian 
and Epiphanius ; for the latter 
says, (Hser. LV. vol. I. p. 472.) 

ov yap a-dpKce, ivedvaccro to Twev^a, 

TTore. But Epiphanius is there 
writing against the heresy of 
Hierax, who said, that the Holy 
Ghost, the third Person in the 
Trinity, had become incarnate. 

a a 3 



358 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



" nocent might be put to death for the salvation of 
" the guilty 1 ." 

This is the passage to which I alluded at p. 139- 
as strongly illustrating the interpretation of Phil. ii. 
7. which in that place I endeavoured to establish. 
285. Cypriani de Bono JPatientice p. 254. 

At the end of this treatise he exhorts the Chris- 
tians not to seek for revenge against their perse- 
cutors, but to leave that to God. He then brings 
texts to prove that the day of vengeance would 
come, when the Lord would punish his adversaries : 
among other passages he quotes that of Isaiah xlii. 
13. The Lord God of hosts shall go forth, and di- 
minish the war ; He shall stir up the contest, and 
shall cry over His enemies with courage. I have 
held my peace : shall I hold it for ever m f Upon 
which Cyprian observes, " But who is this who says 
" that he has held his peace before, and will not 
6< hold it for ever ? It is He, who was brought as a 
" sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his 
" shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth? 
(Isaiah liii. 7 n .) It is plain, that Cyprian here re- 
fers to Christ expressions which were uttered by 
Isaiah in the person of God the Father : and he 

1 Nec hoc Jesus Christus terrena descendens non asper- 

Deus et Dominus noster tantum naturDei Filius carnem hominis 

verbis docuit, sed implerit et induere, et cum peccator ipse 

factis. Et quia ad hoc descen- non esset, aliena peccata por- 

disse se dixerat ut voluntatem tare. 

Patris faceret, inter csetera mi- m This is Cyprian's transla- 

rabilia virtutum suarum, quibus tion of the passage, which dif- 

indicia divinaj majestatis expres- fers from the Hebrew, but 

sit, paternam quoque patien- agrees with the LXX. 

tiam tolerantiae tenore servavit. n Quis autem est hie qui ta- 

Omnes denique actus ejus ab cuisse se prius dicit et non sem- 

ipso statim adventu patientia per tacebit ? Utique ille, qui 

comite signantur, quod primum sicut ovis &c. 
de ilia sublimitate coelesti ad 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



359 



goes on to say, " This is he, who in his suffering 
66 held his peace, but hereafter in his vengeance will 
" not hold it. This is our God, i. e. the God, not of 
" all, but of the faithful and believers, who when he 
" shall come in his second advent will not keep si- 

" lence. God the Father has ordered His Son to 

" be worshipped, and the apostle Paul, remembering 
" the divine command, declares and says, God hath 
" highly exalted him, &c. (Phil. ii. 9.) and in the 
" Apocalypse (xix. 10.) the angel resists John who 
" wished to worship him, and says, See thou do it 
" not, for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy bre- 
" thren. Worship Jesus the Lord 0 ." 

If we turn to the Book of Revelations, (xix. 10. 
or xxii. 9.) we find that Cyprian's quotation differs 
from the received text, which is, / am thy fellow- 
servant and of thy brethen that have the testimony 
of Jesus: worship God: vvvlovXog aov elfu, kou twv 
afieXcpoov aov tuv lyovToov ty\v fxapTvplav tov 'I^o-ou* tco @ea> 
Trpoo-KvvYjcrov. Cyprian perhaps quoted from memory, 
which may account for his omitting the words, that 
have the testimony of Jesus : but the purpose, for 
which he quotes the text, shews that he must have 
read in the latter part of it, Worship Jesus the 
Lord. One MS. also reads the passage thus. It is 
not improbable that Cyprian's copy had o&tXcpcov 

(TOV TCOV €)(OVTC0V TY)V fJLapTVpiaV TOV 'IyJ(TQV. 'i^CTGV TOO K.VpiCp 

° Hie est, qui cum in pas- stolus Paulus divini prsecepti 

sione tacuerit, in ultione post- memor ponit et dicit, Deus ex- 

mod um non tacebit. Hie est altavit ilium &c. Et in Apo- 

Deus noster, id est, non om- calypsi angelus Joanni volenti 

nium, sed fidelium et creden- adorare se resistit et dicit, Vide 

tium Deus, qui cum in secundo ne feceris, quia conservus tuus 

adventu manifestus venerit non sum et fratrum tuorum. Jesum 

silebit Pater Deus prsecepit Dominum adora. 

Filium suum adorari, et apo- 

A a 4 



360 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



7rpoaKvvYj(7ov } and the word 'tyo-ov being thus repeated 
might have caused the copyists to omit it in one 
place. 

286. Cypriani Testimoniorum 1. II. p. 284. 

The whole of the second book of Testimonies 
against the Jews might be translated as proving 
Cyprian's belief in the divinity of Christ, the prin- 
cipal object of the book being to shew by a citation 
of texts that Christ is God. But it will be suffi- 
cient for our present purpose to mention the argu- 
ments of some of the chapters, and the most re- 
markable texts by which the doctrine is supported. 

The first chapter is to shew, that " Christ the 
" first-begotten is the Wisdom of God, by whom all 
" things were made?." Cyprian applies Prov. viii. 
22. to Christ, as we have already seen to have been 
the opinion of many of the Fathers : also Prov. ix. 
1. He refers to John xvii. 3—5. Col. i. 15. 18. 
Rev. xxi. 6. / am Alpha and Omega, the begin- 
ning and the end, &c. which words Cyprian refers 
to Christ, and we may compare Isaiah xliv. 6^. He 
also quotes 1 Cor. i. 22 — 24. 

Chap. iii. " That Christ is the Word of God r ." 
Psalm xxxiii. 6. cvii. 20. John i. 1. &c s . Rev. xix. 
11—13. 



p Christum primogeniture 
esse Sapientiam Dei, per quern 
omnia facta sunt. 

( 1 So Plato, c O /xev Vq 0ec$, 
aaitep kou q TtaXaioq \6yo$, ccpyjqv 
re, Kai TeXevTyv kou (Aecrot, tojv ovrav 
aitavruv eyjuv, De Leg. IV. also 
the Pseudo-Orpheus, — Zeiq apy)) 

r Quod Christus idem sit 
Sermo Dei. 

s This edition of Cyprian 



quotes the third verse ~-sine 

ipso factum est nihil quod factum 
est. In illo vita erat. But I 
have already observed, p. 156. 
that all the Fathers divide these 
words differently; and so pro- 
bably did Cyprian ; for this pas- 
sage might be pointed equally 
well thus, sine ipso factum est 
nihil. Quod factum est in illo 
vita erat. 



CYPRIANUS, A.D. 250. 



361 



Chap. iv. " That Christ is the hand and arm of 
« God V 

Chap. v. "That Christ is an Angel and God u ." 
Cyprian conceived the Angel, who called to Abra- 
ham, to be Christ, Gen. xxii. 11. and yet it appears 
from ver. 12. that the Angel was God himself : also 
the Angel who appeared to Jacob, Gen.xxxi. 11 — 13. 
and there the Angel expressly says that he was 
God. It is said in Exod. xiii. 21. And the Lord 
went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to 
lead them the way, &c. Cyprian refers this to Christ, 
as also xiv. 19. And the Angel of God which went 
before the camp of Israel removed, &c. He con- 
ceived Christ to be the Angel promised in Exod. 
xxiii. 20, 21. 

Chap. vi. " That Christ is God x ." He quotes 
Gen. xxxv. 1. believing, as all the Fathers did, that 
the God there spoken of, who had appeared unto Ja- 
cob, when he fled from Esau, was Christ. He refers 
Isaiah xlv. 14 — 16. to Christ; so also xl. 3 — 5. 
Zech. x. 11, 12. Hoseaxi. 9, 10. Psalm xlv. 6. xlvi. 
10. lxxxii. 5. Ixviii. 4. In all these quotations from 
the Old Testament, there will undoubtedly be a dif- 
ference of opinion as to the propriety of applying 
them to Christ : nor is it the object of the present 
work to enter into this discussion : it will be suffi- 
cient to remind the reader, that many of the pas- 
sages are quoted by other of the Fathers with the 
same view, and we have the authority of the writers 
of the New Testament for referring some of them to 



1 Quod Christus idem manus 
et brachium Dei sit. 

u Quod idem Angelus et 



Deus Christus. 

x Quod Deus Christus. 



362 CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 



Christ. The quotations from the New Testament 
will perhaps appear more to the point. John i. In 
the beginning, &c. John xx. 27 — 29- Rom. ix. 5. 
which contains the controverted passage already 
discussed at p. 93-4. and it is to this place that Uni- 
tarian writers have referred, when they say, that the 
word God is omitted by Cyprian, when he quotes 
the text. But when we remember that he quotes 
it to prove that Christ is God, we could hardly 
suppose, that the very word upon which his proof 
depended would be omitted : and if it did not occur 
in the MSS. of Cyprian, we should naturally infer, 
that it was from accident or carelessness. Accord- 
ingly we find the following note in the edition of 
Baluzius ; " It is certain that the word God is not 
" to be found in the Codex Fossatensis, as the illus- 
" trious bishop of Oxford long ago observed. But it 
" is found in many others, at least in fifteen seen by 
" me ; and in the editions of Manutius and Morel- 
" lius. But in the margin of the edition called that 
" of Gravius, we find this note ; It is strange that 
" even in the oldest MSS. the word God is not 
" added, when it occurs in the Greek." We may 
agree in this expression of wonder ; but such omis- 
sions are not uncommon y : and at all events, since 
Cyprian quotes the passage to prove that Christ is 
God, it is trifling with criticism to draw any infer- 
ence from the omission of a word, when several MSS. 
actually contain it, and the context proves that the 

y " The Arians or the Mace- " they sold them at Constan- 

" donians did the same good " tinople at a low price-" Hors- 

" office for St. Cyprian's Epi- ley's Tracts, p. 385. from Ru- 

" sties : and to circulate their finus, Apol. pro Orig. p. 53. 

" amended copies more widely, vol. IV. Op. Orig. Append. 



CYPRIANUS, A. D. 250. 363 



word must originally have been inserted. He also 
quotes Rev. xxi. 6. John x. 34 — 38. Matt. i. S3. 

Chap. vii. " That Christ, who is God, was to come 
" to enlighten and save mankind 2 ." Isaiah xxxv. 
3 — 6. Behold your God will come with vengeance, 
even God ivith a recompense. Isaiah Ixiii. 9. which 
Cyprian quotes thus ; Non senior neque angelus, 
sed ipse Dominus liherabit illos, quia diliget eos et 
parcet eis, et ipse redimet eos, Isaiah xlii. 6 — 8. 

Chap. viii. " That when from the beginning he 
" had been the Son of God, he was to be born a 
" second time according to the flesh %" Psalm ii. 
" 7, 8. Luke i. 41. Gal. iv. 4. 1 John iv. 2, 3. 

Chap. ix. " That this was to be the sign of his 
" birth, that he should be born of a Virgin, man 
" and God, Son of man and of God b ,'' Isaiah vii. 
10, &c. Gen. iii. 14, 15. 

Chap. x. " That Christ is man and God, formed 
" of each nature, that he might be a mediator be- 
" tween us and the Father 0 ," Numbers xxiv. 17, &c. 
Isaiah Ixi. 1. Luke i. 35. 1 Cor. xv. 47 — 49. 

Chap. xi. " That he was to be born of the seed 
" of David according to the flesh d ." 

Chap. xii. " That he should be born at Bethle- 
" hem." 

Chap. xiii. " That he should come humble at his 



7 Quod Christus Deus ventu- 
rus esset illuminator et salvator 
generis humani. 

a Quod cum a principio Fi- 
lius Dei fuisset, generari denuo 
haberet secundum carnem. 

b Quod hoc futurum esset 
signum nativitatis ejus, ut de 



virgine nasceretur homo et 
Deus, hominis et Dei Filius. 

c Quod et homo et Deus 
Christus, ex utroque genere 
concretus, ut mediator esse in- 
ter nos et Patrem posset. 

d Quod de semine David se- 
cundum carnem nasci haberet. 



364 



CYPRIANUS, A.D. 250. 



fi< first advent V' Isaiah liii. 1, 6, 7. xlii. 2, 4. Zech. 
iii. 1 — 5. Phil. ii. 6, &c. 

All the other chapters might be quoted ; but the 
reader is referred to the whole work ; where, though 
he will find some texts which may appear to be 
strained out of their proper meaning, he must re- 
member that this mode of interpretation was followed 
by all the Fathers : to which we may add, that since 
Cyprian composed this treatise to convince the Jews 
that Jesus was Christ, he would not have affixed any 
sense to the Jewish scriptures, which the Jews them- 
selves were not in the habit of receiving as true : and 
whoever is acquainted with the writings of the Fa- 
thers, or with the Rabbinical commentaries, can 
hardly help admitting, that many passages were be- 
lieved to relate to the Messiah, which we should not 
venture to quote in the present day with that view. 
287. Cypriani de Laude Martyrii p. 345. 

" He became mortal, that we might be immortal ; 
54 and he, by whom all things are governed, endured 
" the final consequence of humanity f ." 

288. Concilium Carthaginense p. 329. 

The third council of Carthage was held A. D. 
256 or 258, having been convened by Cyprian to 
reconsider the question of the validity of baptism 
administered by heretics. The African bishops had 
already decided such baptisms to be invalid ; which 
decision was disapproved of by Stephen bishop of 
Home, and he wrote letters expressing such disap- 
probation. Cyprian however convened another coun- 



e Quod humilis in primo ad- 
ventu suo veniret. 

f Mortalis factus est, ut im- 



mortaies esse possemus, et hu- 
manse sortis exitum pertulit per 
quern reguntur humana. 



NOVATIANUS, A. D. 257. 



365 



cil which was attended by 258 bishops, and they 
confirmed the decision of the former council. 

What I have said of Cyprian constantly adding 
the name of God to the other titles of Jesus Christ, 
may be applied also to some of the bishops assembled 
at this council; and, as in the former instance, I 
shall merely give their own expressions, without 
making any comment upon them. 

Fortunatus of Tuchaboris said, " Jesus Christ, our 
" Lord and God, Son of God the Father and Creator, 
" built his church upon a rock s." 

Euchratius of Thense said, " Jesus Christ our God 
" and Lord completed our faith and the grace of 
" baptism 11 ." 

Venantius of Timisa said, " Christ our Lord and 
" God, when he was going to his Father, commended 
" his spouse to us i ." 

No vat Ian. A. D. 257. 

There is a treatise upon the Trinity ascribed to 
Novatian, which is generally printed at the end of 
the works of Tertullian ; and though the name of 
the author has sometimes been a subject of dispute, 
little doubt has been entertained as to its being a 
composition of the third century. 

Novatian is principally distinguished as a heretic, 
and the leader of a heresy, which was called after 
his name; but we must remember, that his opinions, 

s Jesus Christus Dominus et noster Jesus Christus suo ore 

Deus noster Dei Patris et Cre- perimplevit, p. 333. 

atoris Filius super petram ssdi- 1 Christus Dominus et Deus 

ficavit ecclesiam suam, p. 332. noster ad Patrem proficiscens 

h Fidem nostram et baptis- sponsam suam nobis commen- 

matis gratiam et legis ecclesias- davit, p. 335. 
ticae regulam Deus et Dominus 



366 NOVATIANUS, A.D. 257. 



which were considered and condemned as heterodox, 
related only to the discipline and practice of the 
church, and not to her articles of faith. This is 
expressly said by Sozomen k ; and Socrates tells us, 
that the Novatians believed in the consubstantiality 
of the Father and the Son l . Acesius, a Novatian 
bishop, subscribed the Nicene Creed m . Pope In- 
nocent at the beginning of the fifth century bore 
testimony, that, with respect to the divine power of 
the Trinity, the Novatians always maintained the 
orthodox faith n : and this testimony is more deserv- 
ing of credit, because Pope Innocent persecuted this 
sect, and the church of Rome had a particular rea- 
son for speaking of Novatian with reproach ; for he 
openly opposed the election of one of her bishops, 



k VI. 24, 1 II. 38. 

m I. 10. Soz. I. 22. It should 
be mentioned however, that 
Tillemont agreed with Span- 
heim in thinking, that though 
Novatian believed in a Trinity 
of persons and in the divinity 
of Christ, he spoke in a danger- 
ous manner of the Holy Ghost. 
Bishop Bull considered his te- 
nets to be orthodox. Epipha- 
nius may be quoted as support- 
ing the orthodoxy of the No- 
vatians concerning the Trinity, 
when he says of the Donatists, 
that they agreed with the No- 
vatians in their severe doctrines, 
but erred much more grievous- 
ly, since they professed the faith 
of Arius. The Novatians there- 
fore, in the opinion of Epipha- 
nius, were not Arians. Epiph. 
Haer. LIX. vol. I. p. 504-5. 
Lactantius certainly mentions 
the Novatians as heretics, who 



were not to be called Christians. 
But I cannot help suspecting 
his text to be corrupt. He 
speaks of " Phryges, aut Nova- 
" tiani, aut Valentiniani, aut 
" Marcionitee." Instit. IV. c. 
ult. ; but he would hardly have 
placed them in this order, since 
Valentinus and Marcion pre- 
ceded Novatian by so many 
years. Epiphanius speaks of 
Novatus, as a Sabellian : Haer. 
LXV. 1. vol. I. p. 608. He 
seems to intend the same at 
Hasr. LXXII. 1. p. 834: but 
the authority of this writer re- 
quires corroboration ; and it will 
be shewn presently, that Nova- 
tus was not the same person 
with Novatian. Petavius thinks 
that the name of Novatus is an 
interpolation in this passage of 
Epiphanius. 

11 Ep. 22. ad Episc. Mace- 
don, c. 5. 



NOVATIANUS, A. D. 257. 



367 



and even caused himself to be elected as a rival. In 
his whole conduct throughout this transaction he 
was highly reprehensible. He had adopted the no- 
tion, and had persuaded some others to agree with 
him in thinking, that persons, who had committed 
any great crime, and particularly those who had 
fallen away in the time of persecution, (for Decius 
was then persecuting the Christians,) were not only 
to be excommunicated, but were never to be re- 
stored to the communion of the church. These 
severe and rigorous doctrines were opposed by a 
great majority of the Roman clergy, and particu- 
larly by Cornelius, who in the year 250 was chosen 
to succeed Fabianus as bishop of Rome. Novatian 
used all his influence to oppose this election ; and in 
the following year he was excommunicated from the 
church by a council, which Cornelius convened at 
Rome. This exasperated him so far, that he caused 
himself to be elected bishop in opposition to Cor- 
nelius ; and though his followers were few, his doc- 
trine so far prevailed, that the sect of the Novatians 
continued till the fifth century. Socrates says, that 
he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Va- 
lerian °. 

Some writers have asserted, that his work upon 
the Trinity was composed before his quarrel with 
Cornelius : but Lardner thinks, that the earliest pos- 
sible date is 257 ; and Baronius brought it down as 
late as 270. There have been disputes whether the 
name of this writer was Novatus or Novatian : but 
it appears certain that they were two distinct per- 
sons. Novatus was an African bishop, who came to 



0 IV. 28. 



368 NOVATIANUS, A.D. 257. 



Rome and joined himself to Novatian. The 49th 
Epistle of Cyprian, which mentions the names of 
both, may be considered as decisive on this question p. 

From what has been said, it may be assumed, that 
Novatian's opinions concerning the divinity of Christ 
were perfectly sound, and in accordance with those 
of his contemporaries. At all events we may borrow 
his own words, and say, " It will be allowed me to 
" seek for arguments from other heretics. That is 
<c a safe kind of proof, which is taken even from an 
" adversary, that Truth may be proved from the very 
" enemies of truth V 

On this principle Novatian's treatise concerning 
the Trinity may be read, as containing a statement 
of what was the belief in those days concerning the 
divinity of Christ. It might be expected from the 
title of the work, that the unity of the Father and 
the Son would be maintained; and so precise and 
unquestionable are the terms in which Novatian lays 
down the doctrine of the divinity of the Son, that it 
will be necessary to present the reader with copious 
extracts. We may pass over the first part of the 
treatise which concerns the belief in God the Fa- 
ther; but the second part of it begins thus. 

289. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 9. p. 711. 

u The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, 
" after the Father, also in the Son of God, Christ 

p See Petavius, Annot. in distinction between them. 

Epiphan. Hser. LIX. vol. II. ^ Hoc in loco licebit mihi 

p. 226. Beveridge in Can. p. 69. argumenta etiam ex aliorum 

Lardner in Novat. Jackson in haereticorum parte conquirere. 

bis edition of Novatian. We Firmum est genus probationis, 

may say generally that Novatus quod etiam ab adversario sumi- 

and Novatian were confounded tur, ut Veritas etiam ab ipsis 

by the Greek Fathers, while inimicis veritatis probetnr, c. 

Latin writers made the proper 18. p. 718. 



NOVATIANUS, A.D. 257. 



369 



" Jesus, who is the Lord our God, but the Son of 
" God, of that God, who is one and alone, the Cre- 
" ator of all things r ." 

290. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 11. p. 713. 
Having stated the incarnation of Christ, he says, 
" But lest from our assertion of our Lord Jesus 
" Christ, the Son of God the Creator, having ap- 
" peared in the substance of a real body, we might 
" seem to have yielded, or to have furnished any 
" arguments to other heretics, who in this place only 
" maintain the human nature, and therefore desire 
" to prove that he was simply and merely a man, we 
" do not so speak of the substance of his body, as to 
" say that he was merely a man : but that the di- 
" vinity of the Word being joined in very union, we 
" hold that he is also God according to the scrip- 
" tures. For it is great peril to say of the Saviour 
" of mankind, the Lord and Sovereign of the whole 
" world, to whom all things were delivered, and all 
" things conceded, by his Father, by whom the uni- 
" verse was ordained, the whole was created, all 
" things were arranged, the King of all ages and 
" times, the Sovereign of all angels, before whom 
" there is nothing except the Father, it is great 
" peril to say, that he is merely a man, and to deny 
" him divine authority in these things. For this 
" insulting language of the heretics will affect even 
" God the Father himself, if God the Father 
" could not generate a Son who was God \" 

r Eadem regula veritatis do- Conditor scilicet rerum om- 

cet nos credere post Patrem nium. 

etiam in Filium Dei Christum s Verum ne ex hoc quod Do- 

Jesum Dominum Deum nos- milium nostrum Jesum Chri- 

trum, sed Dei Filium, hujus stum Dei Creatoris Filium in 

Dei, qui et unus et solus est, substantia veri corporis exhibi- 

B b 



370 



NOV ATI ANUS, A.D. 257. 



The remainder of this same chapter is equally ex- 
press. 

291. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 12. p. 713. 
In the 12th chapter he brings several texts to 
prove the divinity of Christ, some of which we 
should perhaps not interpret in the same manner, 
though many of the Fathers considered them as 
applicable to Christ. He quotes Hosea i. 7. and 
says; " If God says, that he will save them by God, 
66 but he saves them by nothing but in Christ, why 
" should man hesitate to call Christ God, whom he 
" sees by the scripture is named as God by the Fa- 
" ther 1 ?" Isaiah vii. 14. and Matt, xxviii. 20. after 
which he says, " God therefore is with us, nay much 
" rather is in us : Christ is with us : he therefore is 
" the person, whose name is God with us, (Em- 
" manuel,) because he is with us u ." Isaiah xxxv. 
3—6. Habak. iii. 3. 



turn asserimus, aliis hsereticis 
hoc in loco hominem tantum 
et solum defendentibus, atque 
ideo hominem ilium nudum et 
solitarium probare cupientibus, 
aut manus dedisse, aut loquendi 
materiam commodasse videa- 
mur, non sic de substantia cor- 
poris ipsius exprimimus, ut so- 
lum tantum hominem ilium esse 
dicamus ; sed ut divinitate Ser- 
monis in ipsa concretione per- 
mixta etiam Deum ilium secun- 
dum scripturas esse teneamus. 
Est enim periculum grande Sal- 
vatorem generis humani, totius 
Dominum et principem mundi, 
cui a suo Patre omnia tradita 
sunt, et cuncta coneessa, per 
quern instituta sunt universa, 
creata sunt tota, digesta sunt 
cuncta, sevorum omnium et 
temporum Regem, angelorum 



omnium Principem, ante quern 
nihil praeter Patrem, hominem 
tantummodo dicere, et auctori- 
tatem illi divinam in his abne- 
gare. Haec enim contumelia 
hsereticorum ad ipsum quoque 
Deum Patrem redundabit, si 
Deus Pater Filium Deum gene- 
rare non potuit. 

t Si Deus salvare se dicit in 
Deo, non autem salvat nisi in 
Christo Deus : cur ergo homo 
dubitet Christum Deum dicere, 
quern Deum a Patre animad- 
vertit positum per scripturas 
esse? 

u Est ergo nobiscum Deus, 
immo multo magis etiam in no- 
bis est. Nobiscum est Christus ; 
est ergo cujus nomen est, No- 
biscum Deus, quia et nobiscum 
est. 



NOVATIANUS, A.D. 257. 



371 



292. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 13. p. 714. 

" Who therefore can doubt, when in the last place 
" (John i. 14.) it is said, The Word was made flesh 
" and dwelt among us, to say without hesitation, 
" that Christ, whose birth it was, was both man, be- 
" cause he was made flesh, and God, because he 
" was the Word of God f Particularly when he ob- 
" serves the evangelical scriptures, that both these 
" substances united into one agreement for the birth 
" of Christ x ." 

There is only need to mention some of the texts 
which he quotes, John Hi. 13. xvii. 5. after which he 
observes, " But if, when it belongs to no one but to 
" God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ per- 
" ceives the secrets of the heart ; but if, when it 
" belongs to no one but to God to forgive sins, the 
" same Christ forgives sins ; but if, when it be- 
" longs to no man to come down from heaven, he 
" descended by coming down from heaven ; but if, 
" when these can be the words of no human person, 
" I and the Father are one, Christ alone uttered 
" these words from a consciousness of divinity ; but 
" if, lastly, the apostle Thomas, furnished with all 
" the proofs and circumstances of Christ's divinity, 
" answered to Christ, My Lord and my God; but if 

" the apostle Paul writes in his Epistles Whose 

" are the fathers, and of whom is Christ accord- 
" ing to the flesh, who is over all God blessed for 
" ever ; but if the same Paul says, that he was an 

x Quis igitur dubitet, cum in Dei, Deum incunctanter edicere 

extrema parte dicitur, Verbum esse? prsesertim cum animad- 

caro factum est et habitavit in vertat scripturam evangelicam, 

nobis, Christum, cujus est nati- utramque istam substantiam in 

vitas, et quia caro factus est, unam nativitatis Christi fcede- 

esse hominem, et quia Verbum rasse concord iam ? 

B'b 2 



372 NOVATIANUS, A. D. 257. 



" apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus 
" Christ; but if the same Paul contend that he 
" learned the gospel not of men, nor by man, but 
" by Jesus Christ, it follows, that Christ is God z." 
293. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 16. p. 717- 
Having quoted Col. ii. 15. where he seems to 
have read like other Fathers and some MSS. «7r- 
€K^vo-a[X€vo$ rrjv vapKOL, he says, that Christ put on flesh 
when he was born, and put it off when he died. 
" But Christ would neither have put off nor put on 
" man, if he had been merely a man. For no one 
" is ever either divested of himself, or clothed with 

" himself It was therefore the Word of God who 

" put off his flesh, and put it on again at his resur- 
" rection ; but he put it off, since he had also put it 
" on at his nativity. It is therefore God in Christ, 
" who is clothed, and he must also be divested V 



y Quod si, cum nullius sit 
nisi Dei, cordis nosse secreta, 
Christus secreta conspicit cor- 
dis ; quod si, cum nullius sit 
nisi Dei peccata dimittere, idem 
Christus peccata dimittit; quod 
si, cum nullius sit hominis de 
coelo venire, de coelo veniendo 
descendit ; quod si, cum nullius 
hominis haec vox esse possit, 
Ego et Pater unum sumus, hanc 
vocem de conscientia divinitatis 
Christus solus edicit ; quod si 
postremo, omnibus divinitatis 
Christi probationibus et rebus 
instructus apostolus Thomas 
respondens Christo, Dominus, 
tneus et Deus mens dicit ; quod 
si et apostolus Paulus, Quorum, 
inquit, Patres et ex quibus Chri- 
stus secundum carnem, qui est 
super omnia Deus henedictus in 



sceeula in suis Uteris scribit ; 
quod si idem se apostolum non ab 
hominibus, out per hominem, sed 
per Jesum Christum, constitu- 
tum esse depromit; quod si 
idem evangelium non se ab ho- 
minibus didicisse, aut per homi- 
nem, sed per Jesum Christum 
accepisse contendit, merito Deus 
est Christus. 

z Nos enim Sermonem Dei 
scimus indutum carnis substan- 
tially eundemquerursum exutum 
eadem corporis materia, quam 
rursus in resurrectione suscepit, 
et quasi indumentum resumpsit. 
Sed enim neque exutus neque 
indutus hominem Christus fu- 
isset, si homo tantum fuisset. 
Nemo enim unquam seipso aut 

spoliatur, aut induitur. Ex 

quo merito Sermo Dei fuit, qui 



NOVATIANUS, A. D. 257. 



373 



294. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 18. p. 718. 
In this chapter he uses the words quoted above 
to justify himself for borrowing an argument from 
heretics, and adds, " For it is so very plain, that it 
" is delivered to us in the scriptures that he is God, 
" that many heretics, moved by the greatness and 
" reality of his divinity, have extended his honours 
" beyond bounds, and dared to declare or to think, 
" that he is not the Son, but God the Father him- 
" self. Which although it be contrary to the truth 
" of scripture, is yet a great and leading argument 
" for the divinity of Christ ; who is so decidedly 
" God, but as being the Son of God, born of God, 
" that many heretics, as we said, have so received 
" him as God, that they thought he should be de- 
" clared to be not the Son but the Father. Let 
" them therefore consider whether he is God or no, 
" whose authority has moved some persons to con- 
" fess divinity in Christ in such a much more unli- 
" mited and unrestrained manner, that they thought 
" him, as we said above, to be actually God the 
" Father ; the manifest divinity of Christ driving 
" them to such a point, that the person, whom they 
" read of as Son, because they observed him to be 
" God, they thought to be the Father. Other here- 
" tics also have been so persuaded of the manifest 
" divinity of Christ, that they said he was without 
" flesh, and took away from him all the human 
66 nature which he had assumed, lest they should 
" destroy the power of the divine name in him, if 
" they joined the human nativity to it : which how- 

exutus est carnem, et in resur- fuerat indutus - itaque in Christo 
rectione rursus indutus. Exutus Deus est qui induitur, atque 
autem, quoniam et in nativitate etiam exutus sit oportet. 

b b 3 



374 NOVATIANUS, A.D. 257. 



" ever we do not approve of, but we use the argu- 
" ment, that Christ is so decidedly God, that some 
" persons have denied him the human nature, and 
" thought him only to be God ; and some have be- 
" lieved him to be God the Father himself, when 
" the argument and tenor of the heavenly scrip- 
<c tures point out Christ as God, but as being the 
" Son of God ; and teach us to believe, that he is 
" also man, the Son of man having been assumed 
* by God a ." 

295. Novatiani de Trinitate c. 23. p. 721. 
After quoting J ohn viii. 23. Ye are from beneath, 
I am from above : ye are of this world, I am not 
of this world, he says b , " If every man is of this 



a Nam usque adeo hunc ma- 
nifestum est in scripturis esse 
Deum tradi, ut plerique haereti- 
corum divinitatis ipsius magni- 
tudineet veritate commoti, ultra 
modum extendentes honores 
ejus, ausissent non Filium, sed 
ipsum Deum Patrem promere 
vel putare. Quod etsi contra 
scripturarum veritatem est, ta- 
men divinitatis Christi argu- 
mentum grande atque prseci- 
puum est ; qui usque adeo Deus, 
sed qua Filius Dei natus ex Deo, 
ut plerique ilium, ut diximus, 
hseretici ita Deum acceperint, 
ut non Filium sed Patrem pro- 
nuntiandum putarent. iEsti- 
ment ergo an hie sit Deus, cu- 
jus auctoritas tantum movit 
quosdam, ut putarent ilium, ut 
diximus superius, jam ipsum 
Patrem Deum, effrenatius et 
effusius in Christo divinitatem 
confiteri : ad hoc illos mani- 
festa Christi divinitate cogente, 
ut quem Filium legerent, quia 
Deum animadverterent, Patrem 



putarent. Alii quoque hseretici 
usque adeo Christi manifestam 
amplexati sunt divinitatem, ut 
dixerint ilium fuisse sine carne, 
et totum illi susceptum detra- 
xerint hominem, ne decoque- 
rent in illo divini nominis pote- 
statem, si humanam illi socias- 
sent, ut arbitrabantur, nativita- 
tem. Quod tamen nos non pro- 
bamus, sed argumentum afferi- 
mus usque adeo Christum esse 
Deum, ut quidam ilium subtracto 
homine tantummodo putarint 
Deum ; quidam autem ipsum 
crediderint Patrem Deum, quum 
ratio et temperamentum scri- 
pturarum ccelestium Christum 
ostendant Deum, sed qua Filium 
Dei, et assumpto a Deo etiam 
Filio hominis credendum et ho- 
minem. 

b Ideo autem si omnis homo 
ex hoc mundo est, et ideo in hoc 
mundo est Christus, an homo 
tantummodo est ? Absit. Sed 
considera quod ait, Ego non 
sum de hoc mundo. Numquid 



NOVATIANUS, A. D. 257. 



375 



" world, and therefore Christ is in this world, is 
" he therefore a mere man ? By no means. But 



ergo mentitur, cum ex hoc 
mundo sit, si homo tantummodo 
sit } Aut si non mentitur, non 
est ex hoc mundo. Non ergo 
homo tantummodo est, quia ex 
hoc mundo non est. Sed ne 
lateret quis esset, expressit unde 
esset : Ego, inquit, de sursum 
sum, hoc est, de ccelo, unde 
homo venire non potest : non 
enim in coelo factus est. Deus 
est ergo qui de sursum est, et 
idcirco de hoc mundo non est : 
quamquam etiam quodammodo 
ex hoc mundo est, unde non 
Deus tantum est Christus, sed 
et homo. Ut merito quomodo 
non est ex hoc mundo secundum 
Verbi divinitatem, ita ex hoc 
mundo sit secundum suscepti 
corporis fragilitatem, homo est 
enim cum Deo junctus, et Deus 
cum homine copulatus. Sed 
idcirco nunc hie Christus in 
unam partem solius divinitatis 
incubuit, quoniam caecitas Ju- 
daica solam in Christo partem 
carnis aspexit, et inde in prse- 
senti loco silentio prseterita cor- 
poris fragilitate quae de mundo 
est, de sua sola divinitate lo- 
cutus est, quae de mundo non 
est : ut in quantum illi inclina- 
verant, ut hominem ilium tan- 
tummodo crederent, in tantum 
illos Christus posset ad divini- 
tatem suam considerandam tra- 
here, ut se Deum crederent ; 
volens illorum incredulitatem 
circa divinitatem suam omissa 
interim commemoratione sortis 
humanse solius divinitatis oppo- 
sitione superare. Si homo tan- 
tummodo Christus, quomodo 
dicit, Ego ex Deo prodii, et veni, 



cum constet hominem a Deo 
factum esse, non ex Deo pro- 
cessisse : ex Deo autem homo 
quomodo non processit, sic Dei 
Verbum processit — Deus ergo 
processit ex Deo, dum qui pro - 
cessit Sermo Deus est, qui pro- 
cessit ex Deo. Si homo tan- 
tummodo Christus, quomodo 
inquit, Ante Abraham ego sum ? 
Nemo enim hominum ante eum 
potest esse, ex quo ipse est, nec 
potest fieri ut quicquam prius 
fuerit ante ilium ex quo ipsam 
originem sumpsit. Sed enim 
Christus, cum ex Abraham sit, 
ante Abraham esse se dicit. Aut 
mentitur igitur et fallit, si ante 
Abraham non fuit, qui ex Abra- 
ham fuit ; aut non fallit, si 
etiam Deus est, dum ante Abra- 
ham fuit : quod nisi fuisset, 
consequenter cum ex Abraham 
fuisset, ante Abraham esse non 
posset. Si homo tantummodo 
Christus, quomodo ait, Et ego 
agnoscam eas, et sequuntur me 
mece, et ego vitam aternam do 
Mis, et nunquam peribunt in per- 
petuum ? Sed enim cum omnis 
homo mortalitatis sit legibus 
alligatus, et idcirco in perpe- 
tuum se ipse servare non pos- 
sit, multo magis in perpetuum 
alterum servare non poterit. At 
in perpetuum se Christus re- 
promittit salutem daturum. 
Quam si non dat, mendax est ; 
si dat, Deus est. Sed non fal- 
lit, dat enim quod repromittit. 
Deus est ergo, qui salutem per- 
petuam porrigit, quam homo 
qui seipsum servare non potest, 
alteri praestare non poterit. 

B b 4 



376 



NOVATIANUS, A. D. 257. 



" consider what he says, I am not of this world. 
" Does he therefore speak falsely., because if he is 
" merely a man, he is of this world ? Or if he does 
" not speak falsely, he is not of this world. He is 
" therefore not merely a man, because he is not of 
" this world. But lest we might not know who he 
" was, he has declared whence he was ; /, he says, 
" am from above, i. e. from heaven, from whence a 
" man cannot come : for he is not made in heaven. 
" It is God therefore, who is from above, and there- 
" fore he is not of this world : although in one sense 
" Christ is of this world, because he is not only God, 
" but also man. So that in the same manner that 
66 he is not of this world, according to the divinity 
" of the Word, so he is of this world according to the 
<c frailness of the body which he assumed : for he is 
" man joined with God, and God coupled with man. 
" But Christ in this passage dwelt upon the divine 
" part only, because the Jewish blindness looked 
" only to the fleshly part in Christ ; and therefore, at 
" present passing over in silence the frailness of the 
" body, which is of the world, he spoke of his divin- 
" ity only, which is not of the world ; that in pro- 
" portion to their inclination to believe him only a 
" man, Christ might so far draw them to consider 
" his divinity, that they might believe him to be 
" God ; wishing to overcome their incredulity con- 
66 cerning his divinity, by omitting for the present 
" any mention of his human condition, and opposing 
" to it only the divine. If Christ be merely a man, 
" how does he say, I came forth from the Father, 
" and am come [into the world f~\ (John xvi. 28.) 
" whereas it is evident that a man is made by God, 
" and does not proceed from God : but in the same 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 877 



" way that a man does not proceed from God, so the 

" Word of God did proceed from Him. God 

" therefore proceeded from God, since the Word 
" which proceeded is God, which proceeded from 

" God If Christ be merely a man, how does he 

" say, Before Abraham was, I am ? for no human 
" being can be before him, from whom he is de- 

" scended but Christ, though he was descended 

" from Abraham, says, that he was before Abraham : 
(t he therefore either speaks falsely and deceives, if 
" he, who was descended from Abraham, was not 
" before Abraham ; or he does not deceive, if he is 
" also God, for then he was before Abraham : which 
u if he were not, it follows, that since he was de- 
" scended from Abraham, he could not be before 
" Abraham. If Christ were merely a man, how 
" does he say, And I will know them, and mine 
"follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they 
" shall never perish ? (John x. 27.) But since 
" every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and 
" therefore cannot save himself for ever, he will be 
" still less able to save another for ever. But Christ 
" promises, that he will give salvation for ever ; 
" which if he does not give, he is a liar : if he does 
" give it, he is God. But he does not deceive, for 
" he gives what he promises ; he is therefore God, 
" who gives eternal salvation, which a man who 
" cannot save himself cannot give to another." 

Dionysius Alexandrinus. A. D. 260. 
The history of Dionysius is closely connected 
with the rise and progress of the Sabellian heresy. 
He was born of a good family in Alexandria, and 
was himself converted to Christianity from hea- 



378 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 

thenism. He was a pupil of Origen, and became 
president of the catechetical School at Alexandria 
about the year 232. Heraclas had preceded him in 
this office, which he vacated upon being elected 
bishop of Alexandria: and after his death in 248 
Dionysius was also appointed to succeed him in the 
bishopric. The persecutions of Decius and Valerian, 
as well as the troubles concerning the Novatian and 
Sabellian heresies, happened while he occupied the 
see. The first persecution began about the year 
249, and Dionysius was obliged to retire from the 
city, but returned in 251. The Valerian persecu- 
tion, which began in 257, fell upon him more openly, 
and he was banished to Cephron in Libya. After 
passing three or four years in exile, he returned to 
his bishopric in 261, when the storm had nearly ex- 
hausted itself and passed away. 

In the mean time he had not been inactive or 
free from the duties of his office. About the year 
255, (though some persons place it earlier,) Sabellius 
began to spread his opinions concerning the Trinity c . 
He held that there was only one Person in the God- 
head, and that the Son and the Holy Ghost were 
only energies, or unsubstantial emanations of the 
Father. This heresy began first in Ptolemais, a 
city of Cyrenaica. Dionysius lost no time in endea- 
vouring to check it ; but when his remonstrances 
were of no avail, he wrote a letter to Ammonius and 
Euphranor, two neighbouring bishops, exposing the 
error of the Sabellian tenets, and urging his col- 
leagues to use every exertion in suppressing them. 
He also sent an account of the heresy, and of the 

c In what follows, I have nasius, de Sent. Dionys. vol. I. 
principally depended upon Atha- p. 243, &c. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 379 



steps which he himself had taken, together with 
copies of his letters, to Xystus, who was then bishop 
of Rome d . 

In his anxiety to confute the Sabellian notions, 
which confounded the three Persons of the Trinity, 
he seems to have used expressions which laid him 
open to the charge of adopting what was afterwards 
the Arian heresy, and dividing the substance of the 
three Persons. He was also accused of speaking of 
the Son as a created being, which arose, as Athana- 
sius informs us, from his having laid great stress 
upon those passages in the scriptures which prove 
the human nature of Christ : and he did this, be- 
cause the tendency of the Sabellian doctrines was to 
confound the Father and the Son, and to deny a 
real and separate existence to the latter e . Some of 
the African bishops conveyed these accusations to 
the bishop of Rome, who was also called Dionysius, 
his predecessor Xystus having died in the interval. 
The bishop of Rome, having summoned a council, 
immediately wrote against the Sabellians, and also 
to the bishop of Alexandria, requesting him to ex- 
plain his opinions concerning the Trinity. This he 
did in a work in four books, entitled his Refutation 
and Defence, which completely satisfied the minds of 
the bishop of Rome and his clergy. This work has 
not come down to us, excepting a few fragments of 
it, which Athanasius has preserved in a book written 

d Euseb. E. H. VII. 6. again, el kou t«; Aefe*$ et'^/ce, Sta 

e 1 fv a rcc ccvBpannvoc tgv kv- tovtq (pytriv elpfjKevcci, npoq to [/.ovov 

plov Set|a? Ttei'cru) pj Xeyeiv eKelvovq, Safest on (ay) o irar'qp ecrnv, uXa 6 

on o iraryjp e<rnv o yevo^evot; avQpu- vibe,, 6 to yevvjrov kou ktkttov kou 

not;, which are the words put itoivjrov ev^vad^evoq oafta' 8<o Kai 

into the mouth of Dionysius by yeyevrjaOcu, kou nevotfo-dai, kcu 
Athanasius. §. 12. p. 251. and iicrfodai Xeyerou 0 wioV. p. 256. 



380 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 



by him for the express purpose of shewing that Dio- 
nysius was not an Arian f . 

The next controversy, which engaged the atten- 
tion of Dionysius, was caused by the heresy of Paul 
of Samosata. This person had been bishop of An- 
tioch from the year 260, and he soon began to 
spread his belief that Jesus Christ was a mere man. 
Dionysius lost no time in attempting to repress this 
heresy. He wrote a letter to Paul ; and at his insti- 
gation a council was held in the year 264. Diony- 
sius did not attend the council in person, on account 
of his ill health and extreme age ; but he wrote a 
letter to the bishops assembled there ; and this was 
the last act of his life ; for in the same year he died. 
Paul contrived to escape any public sentence that 
time ; but in a council held at Antioch, in the year 
269, he was excommunicated and deposed K 

Beside the fragments already mentioned, parts of 
other works of Dionysius are preserved, which fully 
prove how groundless were the assertions of those 
persons, who accused him of denying the consub- 
stantiality of the Father and the Son, and in other 
respects of not acknowledging the full divinity of 
Christ. Both in ancient and modern times this 
charge has been brought against him. Athanasius 
and others refuted the objections of those days. 
Bishop Bull 11 as completely disproved the assertion 
of Sandius, which Huetius ' l had incautiously made 
before him, that Dionysius believed the So?i of God 
to be a creature made by God. Notwithstanding 

f See also de Decret. Syn. Nic. vol. IV. p. 222. 
§. 25. vol. I. p. 230. and de Sy- h Def. Fid. Nic. II. 11. 2. &c. 
nodis, §. 43. p. 757. 1 Origenian. 1. II. c. 2. Quaest. 

« Theodoret. User. Fab. II. 8. 2. §. 10, 25. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.260. 381 



the unanswerable arguments which bishop Bull ad- 
vanced from the very words of Dionysius, we find 
the same assertions repeated by later writers k ; and 
Mr. Lindsey tells us, as if it were an acknowledged 
fact, that Dionysius " hesitated not to call Christ a 
" creature, made, and the like 1 ." 

Whether these statements are true or no, the fol- 
lowing quotations may perhaps serve to shew : and 
we may at least say to the Unitarians, as Athanasius 
did to the Arians, " If the patrons of this heresy 
" think that Dionysius agreed with them, let them 
" also acknowledge the term consubstantial which 
" he used in his defence, and that the Son is of the 
s( substance of the Father, and also his eternity m ." 
296. Dionysii de Martyrio c. 7. p. 33, 34. 

Having occasion to notice the words which our 
Saviour spoke in his agony, Not as I will, but as 
thou wilt, (Matt. xxvi. 39.) Dionysius observes, that 
Jesus spoke of his own will as different from that of 
his Father, in reference to the human nature which 
he assumed. " He, the beloved, knew His perfect 
" will ; and he often says that he came to do that, 
" not his own will, i. e. the will of men : for he ap- 
" propriates the person of men, as being made man : 
" wherefore at that time he even asked not to do 
" his own will, which was inferior ; but he asks that 
" the will of his Father, which was greater, the di- 
" vine will, might be done : which however with 
" respect to the divine nature is one will, his own 
" and the Father's n ." 

k Beausobre has the boldness vol. I. p. 115: but his work is 

to assert of Justin Martyr, Dio- full of paradoxes. 
nysius, and Novatian, that they 1 Apology, p. 204. 
have been more than suspected m P. 260. 

of Arianism. Hist, de Manichee, n To ovv 8€\'/j[/.a avrov to re- 



382 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



297. Dionysii de Martyrio c. 9. p. 39, 40. 
It was the opinion of Dionysius, that when St. 
Luke described our Saviour as sweating drops of 
blood, he did not mean that it was literally blood, 
but that the drops were as thick and copious as 
drops of blood 0 ; and he makes this remark: " The 
" Saviour shewed, by his constant praying and by 
" his great agony, as well as by the thickness of the 
" sweat, that he was a man naturally and really, not 
" in appearance and illusively, and that he was sub- 
" ject to the natural and unequivocal sufferings of 
" man. By the words, I have potver to lay down 

and we may recollect the words 
of Sophocles, aXX* opov peXaq 
' Op[3poq yaXaC^q afyaToq ireyyeTO, 

CEd. T. 1279, which seems also 
to have been a proverbial phrase, 
and is illustrated by Pind. Isthm. 
V. 64. and VII. 39. In the 
Benedictine edition of Greg. 
Naz. Orat. XXX. 16. p. 551. 

the Latin translation has 

de agonia, et sanguineo sudore, 
atque oratione : but the Greek 

IS KCii ayavlaq, kou 6po[Aj3a>v, kou 

wpoa-evfflq, in which there is no 
tainly bear the interpretation of mention of blood. Athanasius 
Dionysius. Justin Martyr may however speaks of 



Xeiov ai/Toq o ay •ctKYftb q \nio-TaT0' kou 
tovto iXvjXvOivat ivoXXaKiq (pYjo-) itoi- 
rjcrav, ov to avTov, tovt£<tti to tuv 
av&panaV oiKeiovrat yap to itpotTatcov 
tuv avQpS-rtcov, aq yevofAtvoq avOpunoq' 
SjoVep kou to'tc to y.ev eavTov to 
eXaTTov izapatTeiTai TtoieTv' aWei he 
to tov itaTpoq to [/.etfyv yevecrQai to 
Oe'tKov 6eXrjjj,a' oitep TtaXiv KaTa tv)V 
OeoTrjTa ev QeXfj^d ecrTi to ai/Tov kou 
UaTpoq. 

0 The words of St. Luke are, 

lyLveTo Se o Ihpaq avTov acre) Qpojxfioi 

afyaToq, (xxii. 44.) which will cer- 



have held the same opinion, 
who omits the mention of blood, 
and says, fbpuq ua-ei 6p6fA(3oi ko,t- 
e%€fTo avTov. (Dial, cum Tryph, 
c. 103.) but Irenaeus might be 
thought to have understood the 
passage otherwise, since he says 
that our Saviour thpcaae Opopfiovq 

al^aToq. (III. 2 2, 2. p. 2 1 9.) 

Dionysius tells us, in which he 
is followed by Photius and Theo- 



lOpOQTOOV Kai 

Opopfiov afyaToq, in Psalm, lxviii. 
17. vol. I. p. 1 121. The Homily 
in Occursum Domini, falsely 
ascribed to Athanasius, mentions 
merely OpopBovq Ihp utoov. ib. II. 
p. 425. We learn from Epipha- 
nius, (Ancor. 31. vol.11, p. 36.) 
that the passage had been struck 
out of some copies of St. Luke, 
and the 43 d and 44th verses are 
wanting in some MSS. Theo- 



phylact, that al^aToq Upaariq, and doret says, v(pai[^ov yeveorBai. tov 

oupaTct KXatet, were expressions llpara tov a-co^aToq. Haer. Fab. 

applied proverbially to excessive V. 13. vol. IV. p. 284. 
labour and excessive sorrow : 



D10NYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. "260. 383 



" my life, and I have power to take it again, (John 
" x. 18.) he shews that his suffering was voluntary, 
" and yet that the life which was laid down and 
" taken again was one, and the divine nature which 
" laid it down and took it again was another p." 

298. Dionysii de Promissionihus c. 4. p. 77. 

In quoting the beginning of the Apocalypse, Dio- 
nysius makes two remarkable variations from the 
received text, which he would hardly have done, if 
he had not considered it as indifferent, whether he 
used the word God or Christ. He says, " The 
" Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave unto 
u him to shew unto his servants shortly ; and he 
" sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant 
" John ; who bare record of the word of God and of 
" his testimony as to what he said." If we compare 
the two passages together, we may observe other 
variations; but I shall only notice, that instead of 
writing, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which 
God gave unto him, Dionysius omits the word 
God, by which he attributes to Jesus Christ what is 
said in the received text to be done by God: and 
instead of, who bare record of the word of God 
and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, he reads, 
his testimony, that is, the testimony of God. Thus in 
one place he substitutes Jesus Christ for God, and in 
another he substitutes God for Jesus Christ: which 

P 'EhyXov he apa u<rirep Ka) hia TtaBe<ri' to (Aevroi e^ovatav tyja Betvai 

ttjs ivTerafAeyqq mpoa-evyj/ic, Ka) rrjq rrjv tpvynv [xov Ka) e%ov<rlav ey^a na- 

noXXyq ayavlccc, ovra koi hia rvjq rav Xiv Xa(3e7v avTyjv, ev Tovtoiq hrjXo7 

Ihparoov nayyTffCoc,, wq <pv<rei Kai skovgiov ehat to itdBoq' Ka) ert, aq 

aXt\Baq, dXX' ovk enrihel^ei Kai (pay- aXXr} y.ev -q nBe\Kevf\ Ka) Xa^ayo- 

racrla, avBpumoq Te e^pvj/xaTicrev o ^ivr, ypv^rj, aXX-q he vj tiBeiaa koi 

2a>Tvjp, Ka) ro7q (pv<TiKo7q rav av- Xapfiavovva QeoT/jq. 
Qpairuv Ka) ahia^X'qroiq i-n'fipeTf\<TaTQ 



384 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



he never would have done, if he had thought that 
such variations made any difference in the sense : 
but believing that the Father and the Son were one, 
he thought that a Revelation given by God was given 
by Jesus Christ, and that the testimony of Jesus 
Christ was the testimony of God. 

299- Dionysii de Promissionibus c. 6. p. 81. 

In this part of the work Dionysius points out the 
close resemblance which exists between the Gospel 
of St. John and his First Epistle, both as to the doc- 
trine and expressions : and among other doctrines 
common to both, he mentions the ubiquity of the 
Father and the Son. " The Father and the Son are 
" every where V From these words it seems im- 
possible to understand the ubiquity of the Son in 
any figurative or restricted sense, unless we conceive 
the same of the ubiquity of the Father. But since 
we believe that the Father is really present every 
where, we must conceive, that Dionysius meant to 
assert the same concerning the Son. 

The ubiquity of the Son is also asserted by Nova- 
tian in the following terms : 4< If Christ be merely a 
" man, how is he present every where when invoked? 
" For this is not the nature of man, but of God, to 
" have the power of being present every where r ." 

300. Dionysii ex Elencho et Apologia p. 87. 

The following quotations are taken from the work 
mentioned above, which Dionysius wrote to his 
namesake the bishop of Rome. 

In the first book he expressed himself thus: " For 

1 c O Hoc-trip Koti 0 Tils navva- ubique invocatus, cum haec ho- 

yfiv. minis natura non sit, sed Dei, 

r C. 14. Si homo tantum- ut adesse omni loco possit ? 

modo Christus, quomodo adest p. 707. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 385 

" there never was a time when God was not a Fa- 
" ther s ;" which is the same as saying, that there 
never was a time when the Son did not exist ; which 
is an assertion that denies in express terms the lead- 
ing tenet of the Arians. Other of the Fathers have 
expressed the same doctrine in nearly the same 
words. Origen, as we have already seen, (p. 345.) 
says, " There never was a time when the Son was 
" not a Son ;" and Novatian, " The Son was always 
" in the Father, lest the Father should not always 
" be a Father V 

Father and son are relative terms ; and the exist- 
ence of the one necessarily implies the existence of 
the other. Thus a man may have lived many years, 
and filled various relations of life, before he became 
a father ; but at the same instant of time in which 
he was entitled to be called a father, his son also 
had existence : and if we were to say of any man, 
that he has been a father for twenty years, it fol- 
lows that at the commencement of that period his 
son was in existence. But if we say that God has 
been a Father from all eternity, we must necessarily 
mean, that from all eternity He has had a Son. The 
mind might perhaps conceive that God had existed 
from all eternity, and that His Son had had a begin- 
ning : but then we could not have said, as Dionysius 
does, that God had been a Father from all eternity. 
The same sentiment is expressed in the two next 
passages, which follow close upon the former. 

s Ov yap \v ore o ®eo$ ovk \v isse dicendus est. Nec enim 

•naTfip. vid. Athanas. vol. I. p. tempus illi assignari potest, qui 

253. ante tempus est. Semper enim 

* C. 31. Sed qui ante orane in Patre, ne Pater non semper 

tempus est semper in Patre fu- sit Pater, p. 7 29. 

c c 



386 DIONYSIUS ALEX A N Dili NU S, A. D. 260. 

301. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 87. 

" For it is not, that God was without a Son, and 
" then begat one, but the term Son means that he 
" has his existence not of himself, but of the Fa- 
" ther u " 

302. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 87. 

" Being the effulgence of eternal light, it follows 
" that he is himself also eternal : for if light always 
" exists, it is plain that the effulgence always exists. 
" For the existence of light is conceived by its shin- 
" ing; and light cannot exist without giving light : 
" for let us again come to examples. If there is a 
" sun, there is light, there is day : if there be nei- 
" ther of the latter, the sun cannot be present. If 
u therefore the sun was eternal, the day also would 
" be without end : but since it is not so, it begins 
(s when the sun begins, and ends when the sun ends. 
" But God is eternal light, neither ever beginning 
" nor ending. Therefore the effulgence proceeds 
" from and is with Him eternally, without begin - 
" ning and eternally generated x ." 

This is the favourite illustration which the Fathers 
used for explaining the union of the-Father and the 
Son y : and though it is better not to pry too deeply 
into such subjects, it is perhaps the closest and 

u Ov yap hrj tovtocv ayovoq w o avyaapa avap^ov kou aeiyeveq. 

®€oq eha inaihoizoivjcraTO' aXX' oti Athanas. ib. 

fjw) nap eavTov o vloq, aXX* <k tov ? Thus Tertullian, (Apol. C. 

UaTpoq e%et to that. vid. Atha- 2i.) cum radius ex sole porri- 

nas. ib. gitur, portio ex summa, sed sol 

x 'Airavyas-pa he uv cpcoToq aihtov erit in radio, quia solis est ra- 

vavTuc, Ka) avThc, aCtioc, io-riv ovroq dius, nec separatur substantia, 

yap aii tov tyuTcq, Ivfkov ooq %<rttv sed extenditur. Ita de Spiritu 

at) to amavyuc-pa. o U ye Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, ut 

0eo<; aUvtov i<TTt cf>a<;, ovre ap^d^e- lumen de lumine accensum. 

vov, ovre Kyj^ov 7tot€' ovkovv aluvtov See Hippolytus, p. 270. and 

TtpoKeiTai Kai crvvecrTiv avTa to ait- Origen, p. 344* 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 387 



plainest illustration which can be found. It is in 
fact the same which is used in the Epistle to the He- 
brews, where the Son is called airavyaa^a t% lolw, 
the brightness or effulgence of his Father's glory : 
and if it be true, as it surely is, that the mind can- 
not conceive the idea of fire without the light which 
emanates from it, then we have found among sen- 
sible and visible objects two things which are coeval, 
though one proceeds from the other. We can never 
tell why in the nature of things fire produces light : 
but we know, that it cannot exist without producing 
it ; for the fire does not exist first by itself, and then 
the light emanates from it : but both exist simulta- 
neously, though the one is the cause of the other z . 
So also though we cannot tell in what manner the 
Son was generated of the Father, we cannot say, that 
the mind refuses the idea of. their coeternal exist- 
ence : and when we read the passage quoted above, 
we must surely allow, that Dionysius held in the 
fullest and highest sense of the terms the eternal ge- 
neration of the Son, and his eternal coexistence with 
the Father. 

303. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 88, 89. 

" The Father therefore being eternal, the Son is 
" eternal, being light of light : for where there is a 
" parent, there is also a child : and if there be no 
" child, in what way and of what can he be a pa- 
" rent ? But both exist, and exist eternally. — God 
" therefore being light, Christ is the effulgence from 

z Tiq yap Uvarai. ko,v 'hoylaav- 2 1 8. He acknowledges that all 

Bai eTj/a* TroTe to amavyatrfjuz ; such similes are but weak and 

. . . . v) ti<s iKavoq fceXeiv ana rov imperfect. See also §.23. of 

r{hiov to aTcavyxo-iAot. ; Athanas. de same treatise, p. 228. and §. 24. 

Decret. Syn. Nic. 12. vol. I. p. p. 229. 

C C C A 



388 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. I). 260. 



6i it \" We may observe, that the same word is used 
here to express the eternity of the Father and the 
Son ; and in the same sentence we cannot take the 
same term in two different senses. Whatever Dio- 
nysius conceived of the eternity of the Father, he 
must also have conceived of the eternity of the Son. 

304. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 89. 

" The Son alone always existing with the Father, 
6i and filled with him that is essentially 15 , himself also 
" is essentially, being of the Father c ." 

305. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 90. 
Having appealed to the line of argument which 

he adopted in his book against Sabellius, he says, 
66 In which I have proved that the accusation, which 
" they bring against me is false, of saying that Christ 
" was not of one substance with God f! ." 

This testimony of Dionysius is particularly valu- 
able, because it contains the word 6[xoov<rio$, of one 
substance, which caused such vehement disputes at 
and after the council of Nice. It is also to be found 
in another work of Dionysius, in the letter which he 
wrote against Paul of Samosata, where he says of 
Christ, that " He was by nature Lord and the Word 
" of the Father, by whom the Father made all things, 
" and said by the holy Fathers to be of one substance 
" with the Father 0 :" from which words we may col- 



a "Ovroq ovv aluvlov rov Uarplq, 
ouwvioq o vloq eari, <j>Zq e/c (paroq &v' 
ovroq ydp yoveuq, 'eari kou reKVOv' el 
be reKVov e'lrj, icaq kou rlvoq elvai 
tvvarvou yovevq ; a>A' elaiv afMpcc, 

Kal elcriv dei'- (pcoroq y.ev ovv 

ovroq rov @eov, o ~Kpio~T-cq eariv dnotv- 
yao-poc. Athanas. p. 254. 

b See note p. 80. 

c Movoq he 0 vloq de) avvwv ra 



Uarpi, kou rov ovroq n'A^pov[A,evoq, 
kou avroq eo~riv av e/c rov Tlarpoq. 

d e ' v 6 J $ yjXeyga kou % 1tp0~ 

<pepovG~iv ey/cA^a. kovt e/^ov ^evboq 
ov, &>q ov Xeyovroq rov Xpiarov ojAOov- 
criov elvou rS ®ea. Athanas. p. 
255. et de Decret. Syn. Nic. 
25. vol. I. p. 230. 

e Tov (pvarei Kvpiov, kcci Aoyov rov 
Ilarpoq, Sx' ov ra. TC&vra eTtotycrev o 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 389 



lect, that this was not a term then used for the first 
time by Dionysius, but that earlier writers had used 
it before him ; and the very fact of his being accused 
of not using the word shews that it was one, which 
writers upon this mysterious question were in the 
habit of using. 

From the time of the council of Nice to the pre- 
sent day, it has often been asserted that the term 
was invented, or at least first applied to the Son, by 
the Fathers assembled at that council. We might 
have imagined this assertion to be unfounded from 
the testimony of Eusebius f and Athanasius both 
of whom tell us, that the Fathers did not invent a 
new term, but that writers of note at different times 
had already used it : and this testimony of Eusebius 
is of more importance, because it appears from the 
letter already referred to in the note, that his own 
opinion was rather against having the term con sub- 
stantial inserted in the Creed ; but he says, " I find 
" that learned and distinguished bishops, and writers 
" in former times, made use of the term consubstan- 
" tial with reference to the divinity of the Father 
" and the Son V Athanasius expressly names Dio- 
nysius as having applied the term to Christ : and 
fortunately the letter of Dionysius is preserved to 
confirm this assertion. 

Rufinus also tells us *, that Origen used the term ; 
and Pamphilus has preserved a passage containing 

UaTrjp, Kai opoovaiov ra Harp) dpy- EpisC. 6. p. 896, et 9. p. 898. 
fjiivov vtto twv dyiccv naTepuv. COu- 11 Tav nahtxizov rivaq Mylovq Kal 

tra Paul. SamOS. p. 214. eitupaveiq iniTKoiiovq koi avyypacpeai; 

f Apud Socrat. H. E. I. 8. p. eyvupev [al. tvpopev] inl tov 

25. et Theodoret. I. I 2. p. 40. irarpoq kou vlov Qtohoylaq tw rov o ( wo- 

s De Decret. Syn. Nic. 25. ova- lav %pYj<ra^yov<; ovo^an. 
vol. I. p. 230. Ep. ad Afric. ' De Adult. Lib. Orig. init. 

c c 3 



390 DION YSIUS ALEX ANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



it, which I have already quoted at p. 346. but I 
have reserved these remarks for this place, because 
Dionysius is the first writer, whose original works 
remain containing the actual Greek word o^oovaiog, 
expressly applied to the Son. It also occurs more 
than once in the creed or exposition of faith drawn 
up by the council of Antioch in the year 269, which 
is given at N°. 327. 

The word opoovatog was in frequent use in the time 
of Irenaeus, though he does not any where expressly 
apply it to the relationship between the Son and the 
Father. The Gnostic heretics also made use of the 
term, when speaking of the emission of their imagin- 
ary JEons k : and if we cannot prove, that Irenaeus 
actually spoke of the Son as o^oovaiog with the Fa- 
ther, it may at least be shewn, that his own argu- 
ments led to the application of the term in this sense. 
In b. II. c. 17. p. 138. where he is asking the Gno- 
stics concerning the manner in which the iEons were 
put forth, he says, " Were they united to him who 
" put them forth, like rays put forth from the sun ? 
" or were they put forth really and divisibly, so that 
" each of them had a separate existence and a dis- 
" tinct form, like man produced from man, and cattle 
" from cattle ? And were they of the same substance 
" with those who put them forth, or had they their 

" substance from some other substance ? If each 

" of them was put forth really and according to its 
" own production, like men are, either these gene- 
" rations of the Father will be of the same sub- 
" stance with him, and like him who begat them, 
" or if they shall appear unlike, we must confess 
" that they are of a different substance.— — —But 

k I- 5- 5- P- 27. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 391 



" if, as one light kindled from another, the iEons 
" are from Logos, Logos from Nus, and Nus from 
" Bythus, as, for instance, torches lighted from an- 
" other torch, they will differ perhaps from each 
" other in generation and in size ; but since they are 
" of the same substance with the source of their 
" emission, they must either all continue impassible, 
" or the Father will also partake of their passions 1 ." 
This passage may contain obscurities : but it suffi- 
ciently proves that Irenseus often used the term 
ofAoova-iog; and that he also believed, that whatever 
is produced from another, like light from light, must 
necessarily be of the same substance with that which 
produced it m . But the notion of the Son being be- 
gotten by the Father, as light put forth from light, 
is to be found in the writings of all the early Chris- 
tians, as I have observed at p. 387 : consequently 
Irenaeus could not have refused, according to his 



1 Quaeritur igitur, quemadmo- 
dum emissi sunt reliqui iEones? 
Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, 
quemadmodum a sole radii, an 
erficabiliter et partiliter, (f. Zvip- 
yov[/.€i/Z<; Kai diaipovf/.evcc<;,) Utl Sit 
unisquisque eorum separating 
et suam figurationem habens, 
quemadmodum ab homine ho- 
nio,et a pecude pecus ? Et utrum 
ejusdem substantiae (opoorfnoi) 
existebant his qui se emiserunt, 
an ex altera quadam substantia 

substantiam habentes ? Sed 

si quidem efficabiiiter et secun- 
dum suam genesin unusquisque 
illorum emissus est secundum 
hominum similitudinem, vel ge- 
nerationes Patris erunt ejusdem 
substantiae (opoovo-ioi) ei, et simi- 
les generatori ; vel si dissimiles 



parebunt, ex altera quadam sub- 
stantia confiteri eos esse ne- 

cesse est. Si autem, velut a 

lumine lumina accensa, sunt 
iEones a Logo, Logos autem a 
Nu, et Nus a Bytho, velut, verbi 
gratia, a facula faculee ; genera- 
tione (f. t&> ytM^vai) quidem 
et magnitudine fortasse dista- 
buntabinvicem : ejusdem autem 
substantiae (opoovaioi) cum sint 
cum principe emissionis ipso- 
rum, aut omnes impassibiles 
perseverant, aut et Pater ipso- 
rum participabit passiones. 

m This is again repeated in 
the same chapter, § . 7 . Si autem, 
quomodo a sole radios, tEoims 
ipsorum emissiones habuisse di- 
cent, ejusdem substantia; et de 
eodem omnes cum sint, aut&c. 

c c 4 



392 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



own argument, to have called the Son o[aoov<tios with 
the Father : and this must have been his belief, 
though we do not find it expressly stated in his 
writings which have come down to us. 

There is also another passage in this work of 
Irenaeus, from which it might be argued that he be- 
lieved the Son to be opoovviog with the Father. It 
occurs in b. IV. c.33. 4. where he is arguing against 
the Ebionite notion that Jesus was a mere man ; 
and he asks, " How could he be greater than Solo- 
<c mon, or greater than Jonas, and how was he Lord 
" of David, if he was of the same substance with 
(i them n ?" Irenseus therefore did not believe that 
Jesus was opoovviog with men ; and since he is here ar- 
guing that Jesus was God°, it would seem to follow 
that he believed him to be opoovaios with God. When 
Irenseus says that Jesus was not of the same sub- 
stance with man, we must of course understand him 
to mean, that he was not merely so : he was opoova-ios 
with man in his human nature, but he was also 
OfMOOvaiog with God. 

No other of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, whose ge- 
nuine works remain, has used the term ; though we 
might suspect that it was well known, even by here- 
tics, that it was so used by Christians, since we have 
an account of a work being written by Hippolytus 
<c against those who attack the incarnation of the 
" Word of God on account of his consubstantiality 
" with the Father p." The work itself is lost : but 



n Quomodo autem plus quam 
Salomon, aut plus quam Jona 
habebat, et Dominus erat David, 
qui ejusdem cum ipsis fuit sub- 
stantia? ? p. 271. 



0 Quomodo possunt salvari, 
(Ebionitse,) nisi Deus est qui 
salutem illorum super terram 
operatus est ? 

p See p. 277 of this book. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 393 



there can be little doubt that the persons, against 
whom it was written, were the Doceta?, who denied 
that Jesus took a real human body : and one of their 
arguments seems to have been taken from the fact, 
that the Son was consubstantial with the Father. 
If the word actually occurred in the title of this 
book, the use of the term in the second century is 
no longer doubtful. Athanasius tells us, that the 
term was applied to the Father and the Son by 
Dionysius bishop of Rome % In a work erroneously 
ascribed to Justin Martyr r we find the word : and 
in the extracts of Theodotus, which have been 
ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, but which are 
certainly of much later date, the word occurs at c. 42. 
where the body of Jesus is said to be of one sub- 
stance with the church. In a spurious work ascribed 
to Origen s , it is said that God the Word is of one 
substance with the Father. The term is also to be 
found in the treatise upon Faith, which is ascribed 
to Gregory of Neocaesarea, c. 2. but which is gene- 
rally supposed to be of a later date. 

It appears therefore that out of the Greek Fa- 
thers, who wrote before the council of Nice, the 
word ofjLoovaioc, as applied to the union of the Father 
and the Son, was used by Origen, Dionysius of 

*J DeDecret. Syn. Nic. C. 25. ahkcc e/c T?jfc rov Rarpoq ovalaq €(pv, 

I. p. 230. where he tells US also aq rov (pcoroq to aTvavyao-pa, aq v§a- 

that the Homoousian doctrine roq ocryiq' oirre yap to a-Kavyaaya 

was clearly taught by Theogno- ovrt vj arpiq, avro ro v&c-p e<rriv, 7 q 

stus, who flourished about the avroq 6 vfhioq, ovre aKkorpiov' a'AXa. 

year 282; and certainly nothing a-noppota rrjq rov liar pa q ovcriaq, ov 

Can be plainer than the mean- [Aepia-y.lv vTcoyeivacrriq rv\q rov Uarpoq 

ing of the following passage ova-taq. 

which he quotes from the writ- r Qusest. Grsec. ad Christ, 

ings of Theognostus : OvKefjuBev p. 538. 

rlq ia-nv i(pevp<;de7o-a q rov vlov ov- 3 De recta in Deum Fide. 

«•*'«, ovhe €K u/rs owtuv (ireio-'/}x8yj' sect. I. Vol. I. p. 804. 



394 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



Alexandria, the Fathers at the council of Antioch, 
and Dionysius of Rome ; to which we may perhaps 
add the much older authority of Irenaeus and Hip- 
polytus. The names of profane authors, who have 
used the term, may be seen in lexicons K 

It must not however be omitted, that some ex- 
pressions of Latin writers seem clearly to shew, that 
the word consubstantial was not strange to their 
ears. In the Latin translation of Irenaeus, we read, 
that " the Holy Ghost declared the birth of Christ, 
" which was of a Virgin, and his substance, that he 
" was God u ," from which it would appear that Ire- 
naeus believed in the consubstantiality of God and 
Christ, though he did not perhaps actually use the 
word ofAoovo-ioc in this place. Tertullian however 
seems to have had it more directly in view, when he 
said, that " The Son of God was called God from 
" unity of substance x ." In another place he con- 
demns the heretics, who made the Father Son and 
Holy Ghost to be absolutely and personally one, 
" As if all might not be one in this way, that all 
" proceed from one, I mean by unity of substance? ;" 
soon after which he expressly says, that " the Three 
" are of one substance z ." In the same treatise he 

4 See Petavius de Trin. 1. IV. be in Greek na\ ha tovto tqv 

C. 5- P- 204. vlov rov @eov kou ®tov Xeyo^evov e'/c 

u Diligenter igitur significavit rov opoofotoy elmi. 

Spiritus Sanctus per ea quee di- y ■ quasi non sic quoque 

eta sunt generationem ejus, quae unus sit omnia, dum ex uno 

est ex Virgine, et substantiam, omnia, per substantia? scilicet 

quoniam Deus. III. 21. 4. p* unitatem. Adv. Prax. c. 2. p-5oi. 

217. See also II. 17. 7. p. 139. which would be in Greek, &q ovk 

x HunC ex Deo prolatum di- dv ev e«? koi ovTaq vavTa, %> e| ivoq 

dicimus etprolatione generatum, irdvra, ha tov opoovria elvai. 

et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum z unius autem substan- 

dictum ex imitate substantias, tia?, et unius status, et unius 

Apol. c. 2i» p. 19. which would potestatis. Ib. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 395 



says, that " he derives the Son from nothing else 
" but from the substance of the Father a :" and 
again, " I every where hold one substance in three 
" coherent Persons V It will surely be allowed 
after these examples, that if Tertullian, who under- 
stood Greek, and had written in that language, had 
not met with the word opoovo-ios, he was at least 
fully acquainted with the doctrine which it con- 
veyed, and expressed it as adequately as he could 
in Latin words. 

Novatian also says, that " there is one true God 
" and eternal Father, from whom this divine power 
" is sent forth, and being delivered to the Son is 
" again by communion of substance brought back to 
" the Father c ." Lactantius speaking of the Father 
and the Son, says, that " both have one mind, one 
" spirit, one substance d ." 

Perhaps Athanasius and Eusebius were not wrong 
in saying, that the word ofxoovvios was used by writers 
who lived before the council of Nice e . 

306. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. c. 10. p. 95. 

The following passage was in the second book of 
the Defence : " If any of my accusers imagine, be- 
" cause I have called God the Maker and Creator 
66 of all things, that I also call Him the maker of 



a C. 4. Cseterum qui Filium 
non aliunde deduco, sed de sub- 
stantia Patris, &c. 

b C. 12. Caeterum etsi ubique 
teneo unam substantiam in tri- 
bus cohaerentibus &c. 

c Unus Deus ostenilitur ve- 
rus et seternus Pater, a quo solo 
haec vis divinitatis emissa etiam 
in Filium tradita et directa rur- 
sum per substantias communio- 
nem ad Patrem revolvitur. c. 3 1. 



P-73°- 

a Una utrique mens, unus 
spiritus, una substantia est. In- 
stit. IV. 29. p. 351. 

e Epiphanius has some good 
remarks upon the use of this 
term. Haer. LXIX. 70, vol. I. 
p. 797. A long and learned 
discussion may also be read in 
Cudworth's Intellectual System, 
c. IV. §. 36. 



396 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



" Christ, let him observe, that I first had called Him 
" Father, in which the term Son is also included ; 
" for I introduced the word Maker after I had used 
" that of Father 5 ; and neither is He the Father of 
" the things of which He is the maker, if he that 
" begets is properly called father — nor is the Father 
" a maker, if only he who makes a thing with his 
" hands is called maker s." 

307. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. c. 11. p. 96. 

In the same book he allows that he may have ap- 
plied the word Maker to God with reference to His 
Son ; but he says, that he used it " on account of 
" the flesh which the Word assumed and which was 
" made h :" he mentions also the sense in which ?ro/- 
yityis was applied by the Greeks to poets, i. e. the 
makers of their works ; which is evidently a meta- 
phorical sense, and merely means that their works 
were produced by them *. 

If Dionysius was accused of calling the Son a 
creature, merely because he called God the Maker, 
UoiYjTYis, of all things, nothing could be more unfair 
than such a charge. The very fact of this word 
coming to signify a poet proves, as Dionysius ob- 
serves, that manual formation was not a necessary 



f This passage is mistrans- 
lated by the Benedictine editor 
of Athanasius, and by the editor 
of Dionysius. 

& 'Eav Ze tic, tZv cvKOcpavTav, 
ivetbyj tuv diravTuv %oiy\t\v tov Seov 
kou hyiJiiovpyov elnov, oirfcai y.e Koti 
tov Xpitrrov Aeyeiv, ctKOvaaTa {/.ov 
npoTepov itarepa (p'/jcavToq avrov, iv 
a kou o vtoq npoayeypavTai' y.eta 
yap to el-rcelv itaTepa noi'/jTYjV tVa- 
yqo'xjx' kou ovrt itUT'/jp i&Tiv av noi- 
rjiYjqt el Kvpiccq 6 yevv^aaq TtotT^p 



aKOvoiTO ovt€ TroivjTYjc, o irctTyp, 

el y.ovoq 6 %eipoTeyyy)q noirjTYjq XeyoiTo. 
Athanas. p. 257. 

11 elprjKevat yap noiYjT'/jv (pvjcri 

hta TTjV GapKa \> ocvehafte yevr\T\i/ 
overav avryv 0 Aoyoq. Athanas. p. 
258. 

1 Aristotle illustrates the ap- 
plication of the term noteiv to 
poets and to parents by saying 
of the former, vitepaya-KUGi yap 
tcc olKeta KQi , r}[/.aTa, cnepyovTeq coo-Rep 
TeKva. Eth. Nic. IX. 7. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 397 



part of the idea attached to the term : and if Diony- 
sius even said that God was the Maker, Elooynfc, of 
His Son, meaning thereby that the Son originated 
from the Father, as being begotten by him, he might 
still have believed in the coeternity of the Father 
and the Son. For though Homer existed before the 
Iliad, yet we cannot say that the poet Homer existed 
before his poetry : he was not a poet, till the poetry 
had an existence ; which I merely observe for the 
sake of shewing, that the word ttoivjty}?, ?naker, does 
not necessarily imply that the person of whom it is 
predicated, existed before the thing which he pro- 
duced. 

308. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. c. 13. p. 97. 

This fragment, which is taken from the third 
book, contains some illustrations of the manner in 
which the Son was generated by the Father ; " He 
" was begotten, life of life, and flowed as a river 
" from a fountain, and was a shining light kindled 
" from an inextinguishable light k ." 
309. Dionysii Epistola adv. Paul. Samos. p. 203. 

This letter was written by Dionysius against the 
heresy of Paul of Samosata, and we may collect 
from it that the following were some of the opinions 
maintained by Paul. He believed that Christ was 
in fact two persons ; one of whom was by nature the 
Son of God, who existed before : but the other was 
merely called Christ, and had no previous existence, 
but was a mere man, who for his singular piety and 
virtue was called God. Paul therefore believed that 
God had a Son, whom he also called the Word of 
God, but he denied that Jesus was this person. It 

k Zay €K £&vjs iyevirqQ'/ji kou aa- aim ^>wv\q ctefleaTOv Aafxitpov <^>aq 
nip -rtorapoq cnio Tnj'yvfc €pp€i<re, kcci avtyO'/j. Athanas. p. 256. 



398 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 26*0. 



is evident by comparing two passages in Socrates 1 
and Athanasius m together, that Paul believed a di- 
vine emanation from God to have resided in Jesus, 
though Jesus himself was born as an ordinary man. 
Athanasius in another place n expressly says, that 
the followers of Paul believed Jesus to have become 
God after his appearance on earth : and Marcellus, 
a distinguished successor of Paul, believed the Lo- 
gos and Christ to be two distinct beings, which 
were united when the latter was born of Mary°. 
Epiphanius represents Paul as approaching near 
to Sabellianism v : he believed the Logos to be 
God, and to reside in the Father, but not to have a 
separate existence. Jesus was a mere man, into 
whom the Logos entered by inspiration. Diony- 
sius wrote a letter to shew the absurdity of this 
doctrine, and at p. 204. he says, " You purposely 
" conceal the knowledge, that one only-begotten 
" Son of God is spoken of, as the divinely in- 
" spired scriptures testify of him, who is also called 
" Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, as it is written 
" of him : (1 Cor. ii. 8.) who also saves those that 
" believe on him by his own suffering, saving them 
" as God and not as man ; for, it is said, he shall 
"save his people from their sins: (Matt. i. 21.) 
" for God alone has power to save from sin, as a 
fi< creditor has to forgive a debt, for who is a God 
" like unto thee, that par doneth iniquity, and pass- 
" eth by their transgressions (Micah vii. 18.) 

1 II. 19. p. 100. p Haer. LXV. 1. vol. I. p. 

m De Decret. Syn. Nic. 24. 608. 612. 614. 

vol. I. p. 229. q 'Ekcov \eA'/]0a<;, oti eJg Kticq- 

n De Synodis, 26. vol. I. p. pvi<rai kou ^ovoyevrit; vioq rov Seov, 

7^9- [AocprvpovG-i 7rep< avTov cd 6eoTtvev- 

0 lb. p. 740. cttqi ypa,(pal, Koi Kpiaroq 'Ivj<ro2<j 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS, A. D. 260. 899 

Beside other proofs of the divinity of Christ con- 
tained in this passage, Dionysius could not have 
applied the words of Micah to Christ, unless he had 
believed him to be really God. 

310. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos. p. 205, 6. 

Paul having said, that Jesus was a mere man, who 
was taken into favour by God for his peculiar sanc- 
tity, Dionysius observes, that the life of Christ was 
not one of such strict and rigorous sanctity as that 
of John the Baptist : " It is therefore absurd to say, 
" that Christ was a man, or that he found favour 
" with God above all men, so as to have God dwell 
" in him, without ascetic and laborious righteous- 
" ness : for Christ is not in name only, but in truth, 
<e being the Word before the worlds, Christ the Lord 
" Jesus ; for he himself became man being incarnate 
" of Mary r ." 
311. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos. p. 207. 

Dionysius addresses himself to Paul, as one " who 
" was enraged against the Lord, who is the Father 
66 of Christ, and against His Christ: who is Christ 
" the power of God, the Wisdom of the Father, 
" being the eternal Word : for being eternal he be- 
" came a child, being begotten a Son for us s ." 



KaXov^evoq, 6 Kvpioq Tyq §o£% 
e'l'p'/jrcti nepi avTov' o tea.) crw^wv Tovq 
•KjiCTTevovTas in' ainov l$iq> itdBei, 
Be'iKaq a&Ccov, ku) ovk dvBpamivccc' 
avToq yap, <p'/j<ri, ouxrei tov Xaov 
avTov duo tojv djAapTtav avTuv' 
[Aova yap ©eco e| dfxapTicov SwaTov 
crw^eiv, wcrnep koi tu xpeacrTOvpevcci 
to acpeaiv napaa-x/iv, k\ t. a. 

r Ovkovv aToivov Igti to Xeyeiv 
avBpceKov tov Xpia-Tov, 7j evftoKticBai 
napd ®eov T.apd icdvTaq dvBpanzovq 
elq %eov KaTOLK'/jcriv, dvev Tvjq d<XKf\- 



Tixy\<; Ka) evntovov diKaioavvrjq' 6 yap 
XpicrTot; ovk ovo[AaTi [/.ova, dXX' dX'f\~ 
Beta nrpo alavoiv ocv Aoyoq, ~Kpi<TToq 
Kvpiog 'Irjaovq' avToq yap yeyovev dv- 
Bpomoq o aapKuBeiq 4k Mapiaq. 

s evBvf/.ov[/.evoq kut& tov 

Kvpiov, oq i<ni TtaTrjp XpiaTov, Ka) 
KaTa tov XpiaTov avTov, oq i<ni 
~Kpi(TToq, ®eov §vva[Aiq, t\ tov UaTplq 
crocpla, av Aoyoq dfbioq' difiioq yap 
av yeyove nrato'iov, yevvrjBe)q TjfjCiv 
vloq. 



400 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS, A.D. 260. 

312. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos. p 207, 8. 

" But Isaiah before this was inspired and spake 
" of the Child, who was God, the mighty God, and 
" the Virgin who conceived t ." 
313. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos. p. 210. 

" But Christ, who rose from the dead, died and 
" lived, that he might be Lord of the dead and the 
" living : for he is God by nature, who had dominion 
" over all things : and having risen, and being re- 
" cognized by his wounds to be very God, who was 
" crucified and rose again, and was declared by 
" Thomas to be God and Lord with equal honour, 
" (for the Lord God who was wounded for our sakes 
" rose again having the wounds in his hands :) for 
" the God of the apostles, who was handled by them, 
" was not by nature man, but by nature God, who 
" has the heathen for his inheritance, and is the Judge 
" of all the earth, as it is written, Arise, O God, 
"judge the earth, for thou shalt inherit all nations. 
" (Psalm lxxxii. 8.) Christ being the Word, the Son 
" of God, the heir, died in later times after his ser- 
" vants the prophets, as he himself says in the Gos- 
" pels to those who killed the prophets u ." Then 
follows the passage which has been given already at 



* 'AAAa itpo rovrov ifiitvecov 'H- 
ca'iaq &eov tjr%i/pov, ®eov itaiViov kyj- 
pi/rret, Kai itapBevov iv yaarpi Aap- 
fidvovo-av. 

u e O 8e €K veKpav avaaraq Xpi- 
arroq aneOave Kai e^vjcrev, iva Kai 
veKpuv koi X^avrav Kvpiev<rrj' ©eoq 
yap icrn (pvirei, 6 Kvpievcov rwv d- 
ndvrav' Kai avaaraq Kai iiriyvwaQelq 
ii< ruv rpavfidrwv @eoq elvai a'Ar)6i- 
voq, 6 (rravpaQelq Kai ai/aarraq, bfio- 
ripuq Tt Seoq Kvpioq viro tov ©apa 
K'/)pvrr'juevoq' 6 yccp Kvpioq b Seoq, 



ey^av iv %epaiv avrov rovq [/.u'Aamaq, 
dveuryj, b rerpavu.ariafA.evoq 8t s f\\xaq' 
@eoq yap rcov aitoari oAav b i^>jAa^)7j- 
6eiq, ov <pvaei dvOpomoq, aKka if)vaei 
®eoq, b KAfipovopoq rccv iQvav Kai 
k ply itaaav rrjv yrjvt ooq yeypaizra.i y 
'Avdara k. r. A. Tloq ®eov Aoyoq av 
b Xpiaroq, b HA'fjpavof/.oq, aiteBavev 
vartpov fierce rovq dovXovq avrov rovq 
itpo^qraqy aq avroq, (pyaiv, iv evay- 
yeXioiq elite itpoq rovq a/KOKre'ivavraq 
rovq Trporfyqraq. 



DIONYSIUS ALEX ANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 401 



p. 128. after which we read, " Christ is one, who is 
" in the Father, the coeternal Word : there is one 
" person of him, the invisible God, and who became 
" visible, for God was manifest in the flesh, (1 Tim. 
" iii. 16.) being made of a woman, who was begotten 

" of God his Father. One only Virgin the daugh- 

" ter of life brought forth the living and self-sub- 
<e stantial Word, the uncreated Creator, the God who 
s< came into the world and was unknown, God who 
" is above the heavens, the Maker of heaven, the 
" Creator of the world x ." This last sentence seems 
alone sufficient to refute the assertion, that Diony- 
sius believed Christ to be a creature. 
314. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paid. Samos. p. 214, 15. 

" He that was begotten of God before the worlds, 
" the same in the latter days was born of his mo- 
" ther: for this reason the Jews were murderers of 
" God y, because they crucified the Lord of glory ; 
" for if Christ were not himself the Word, very God, 
" he could not have been without sin : for no one is 
" without sin, except one, who is Christ, as also the 
" Father of Christ, and the Holy Ghost: whence also 
" he died voluntarily, and rose again voluntarily, 
" having performed the divine miracles, being the 
" only -begotten Son of God : it is he who asked for 
" the divine glory, which he had before the world 
" was ; (John xvii. 5.) not that he was destitute of 



x FAq e<n\v 0 Xf3«7TG$, o oov iv tS 
itarpi avva'ihiot; Aoyoq' ei' avrov itpoa-- 
awov, aoparoq ®eo<;, Kai oparoc, ye- 
vopevoi;' Seog yap i(pavepa9't] iv crap- 
Kt, yevo[/,€vo<; £k yvvoAKoc, o e/c ®eou 

Ttarpoq yevvrfieiq- [Kia Se f/.ovv) 

napQevot; dvydr'/jp ^rj<; iytvvrpe tov 
Zfivra Aoyov Kai ivvitoa-raTov, tov 



aKTicrov Kai Srj^iovpyov' rov ikBovra 
Iv t&j KQ<rf/.<p, Kai ayvccarov ®€ov> 
Kai vizepovpaviov ®eov, ovpavov iroirj- 

TVjV, TOV fylliOVpyOV TOV K0T[/.0V. 

y See Tertullian, p. 205. N°. 
1 09, where the same expression 
is used. 

D d 



402 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 

" it ; God forbid ! but he says, that the manifestation 
" of himself was made to us, that we who believe 
" might glorify him, who was glorified in strength, 
" being righteous by nature, as God, not by ascetic 
" exercise, like any religious man — but Christ was 
" not shewn forth in ascetic practice by religious 
" faith, as we have said already : for his righteous- 
" ness was natural, and his power divine : and he is 
" himself believed to be the only true God, who re- 
" quires of men that they should profess their faith 
" in him =%" 

315. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. I. p. £1 8. 

Beside the letter which Dionysius wrote against 
the heretic Paul, there is another work of his, con- 
taining answers to ten questions, which Paul pro- 
posed as objections to the orthodox belief. The 
whole of this treatise might be translated, as contain- 
ing the most unequivocal assertions of the divinity 
of Christ, and his eternal coexistence with the Fa- 
ther : nor will there be need of much introduction or 
prefatory remark to make the different passages in- 
telligible : but if we could entertain any doubt as to 
what were the tenets of the catholic church in the 



z 'O Ik ®eov yevv/]9e}q mpo ccloo- 
vcov, o avroq en? evydruv eK y^rpoq' 
did rovro BeoKrovoi 'lovdaioi, eVei rov 
Kvpiov rvjq do^'tjq ecrravpaarav' el jWtj 
<ydp Yjv 6 Xpicrroq avroq 6 av %eoq 
Aoyoq, ovk rfivvaro elvai ava^dpr-f\- 
roq' ovde)q ydp dva[Actprv}roq, el [avj 
elq o y^picrroq, ooq Kai 6 Tcarvjp rov 
Xpiarrov, koi to ay tov T.vev^a' oBev 
Kai BeXav dneBave, Ka) Ikcov yyepdy], 
ipyacrdfAtvoq rdq Beoa-yjfAiaq, vloq uv 
rov ®eov \A.ovoyevr\q' avroq iariv h 
alrav r\v Be"ua\v do^av, vjv elyje tcpo 
rov rov Kocrfxov yevecrBat, ov ravrrjq 



uv epyfAoq, pri yevoiro, dXXd '/Jyet 
tvjv eavrov irpoq ypaq yeve&Bai <pave- 
pacriv, fva ho^daa^ev avrov ol Ttio-roi, 
rov dedo^aa-f^evov ev l<x%vi, diKaiov ovra 
<pv<rei, wq Seov 3 ov Kara do-KYjatv, 
Ka) Ka^drovq, aq iraq dvBpwnoq rav 

Oeocrefioov- --Xpiaroq de ovk ev d- 

(TKyjcrei dedeiKrat did Tilcrreaq Beoee- 
fielaq, aq vjdyj irpoelp^rai' (pv<riKVj 
yap diKaioavv/j koi Bukt, dvvatuq 
vndpyei' Ka) avroq eari uovoq tt*- 
<rrev6(A,evcq Seoq dXyjBivlq koi dnaircov 
rovq avBpaitovq rvyv elq avrov ouoXo- 
yiav rrjq iclcrreaq. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 403 



days of Dionysius, we may collect them most fully 
from the objections which Paul of Samosata brought 
forward. 

Thus in the first question he says, " How can you 
" say and write that Christ is by nature the God of 
f the apostles, and not a man like ourselves ? for he 
" appears to have come to suffer, and he says, Now is 
" my soul troubled: (John xii. 27.) say whether this 
" is the nature of a God a ?" After reading this, it 
seems impossible to deny, that in the opinion of Paul 
the whole catholic church believed Jesus Christ to 
be God by nature : and almost every one of the ten 
questions leads us to the same conclusion. Diony- 
sius answers the objection by bringing instances from 
the Old Testament, where God is said to repent and 
be agitated, and particularly from Hosea xi. 8 ; after 
which he says, " Is it not plain, that he who spoke 
" by Hosea is the same who says in his passion, Now 

" is my soul troubled f- Acknowledge therefore 

" that he who was crucified was not a man, but one 
" holy, one only-begotten Son of God, the Word b ." 
316. JDionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. II. p. 220. 

The second question contains a similar objection ; 
and Dionysius again brings instances of God being 
said to be angry, 66 But if He is not grieved when He 
" visits the disobedient with His anger, there would 
f also be no joy : how then does Jesus, who is God, 
" that cannot lie, say, Verily, verily, I say unto 



a USq 8e Xeyeiq koc) ypcccptiq, on 
(pvo-ei XpxrToq ®eoq tav ccnocrroXuv 
io~n kou ov%) avQpoeizoq Ka(f 7jf/,ccq o 
Xpicrroq ; (potlveTcu yap ipyjpevoq dq 
to TtaQoq, Kctt \eyav, N£j> 77 ypv%'/] [/.w 
T6TupxKTaS ciVe, el tqvto (pvaiq 
®eov £<niv ; 



b P. 2 19.' Apa. iv rovroiq ov <f>a- 
vepaq 0 eiTTav hicc 'fierce, 0 avroq no.- 
Xiv Xeyei ixl tov isaQovq, on vvv v\ 

ipvX'l ^ ov rerapaKTai Ktzi iv 

tovto) ar.oboc, on ovk avBpwxoq icrnv 
0 o-ravpaBeic, ScXXa etq ayioq, elq [Ko- 
voyevrjq vtoq tov ®eov, i«xi Aoyoq, 

D d 2 



404 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



" you, there is joy in heaven over one sinner that 
" repenteth ; (Luke xv. 7.) and again it is written, 
" The wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
" against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of 
" men, who hold the truth of God in unrighteous^ 
6i ness : (Rom. i. 18.) this is the wrath of God against 
" those who grieve the Son of God, who is the true 
" God, because they also grieve the Father, who to- 
" gether with the Son is without beginning, as also 
" the Holy Ghost c ." 

317- Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. III. p. 221. 

In the third question, which it is not necessary to 
state at length, Paul charges Dionysius with saying, 
that Christ " is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, 
<c and God coeternal with the Father d :" and Diony- 
sius in the course of his reply, says, " The God of 
" Israel, the Lord, when he rose again on the third 
" day, built up in himself those that were dispersed, 
" a holy temple e ." 

318. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. IV. p. 227. 

The fourth objection is also one which it is no 
necessary to explain : but we may observe, that Di 
onysius in his reply uses these remarkable words i 
allusion to Psalm xciv. 9- " The hand of the God 

" Israel planted the ear, who is Jesus, the foun 

" tain of life, who exists with the Father, the ver 

c E* 8e ov Xvitov^evoq indyei r\v Ka) to nvevpa to ayiov. 

lpy\v Kara rcov amiQovvrav, ovk av d ■ avrov "kiyuv elvai r K 

€ "? X a P^' Ka ' heyei o a^evVqc, Aoyov Ka) r\v arocpiav rov Harpo 

'l^o-ovq o ©eo$, 'A[AVjV k. r. A. Ka) Ka) ®€ov avvaihov rov Tlarpoq. 
itakiv yeypaitraiy ' AtiOKa'Avitrerai e P. 224./ AW avaara$ rrj rpl 

k. r. avrvj 7} opyrj rov ®eov Kara qftepa 0 @eo$ rov 'lapavjA 6 Kvpi 

roov Xvny)o~a,vToov rov vlov ®eov, rov rovq ^laanapivraq aiKodof^rjo-ev iv ea 

®€ov rov aXtfiiVOVy on Ka) rov Ylarepa rS vaov ayiov. 
iXviTYjo-av rov cvvavapypv rov vlov. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 405 



" Christ Jesus f :" and again, " Jesus Christ, the God 
H of Israel, being about to be led to his holy and 
" life-giving cross, was not led alone, but the Father 
ec was with him : for before he came to the cross, he 
" said to the blessed apostles, The hour cometh, 
" when ye shall all leave me alone : and yet I am 
" not alone, because the Father that sent me is with 
6( me, and hath not left me alone ; (John xvi. 32.) 
" so that the type was proved to be reality : for he 
H that endured the cross thought it not robbery to 
" be equal with God, who is the Word of the Fa- 
" ther, and the Son, and our Lord God, the Lord of 

" Hosts, who was lifted up upon the cross for if 

" Moses was ordered by the Holy Spirit in the ty- 
" pical prefiguration to choose the goats without 
" spot, will it not be much more so with the Word 

" who is of one species with the Father, like 

" him without beginning, the very Christ, coeternal 

" with him who begat him ? When the Son was 

" led as a sheep to the slaughter, the Father was 
" not separated from His Word, who is of one spe- 
" cies with himself : the two substances are insepar- 
" able, as is the substantial Spirit of the Father, 
" which was in the Son s ." At p. 232 he speaks of 



' i<f)vrevaav corlov al X^pec, rov 

®eov ''laparjX, oq iariv 'Iqaovq, 

7j iz'fff^ ryq ^toYjt;, '/) ovaa itapa ra 
mar pi, o av Xpiaroq 'l'/jaovq. 

S P. 229. MeXXcovyap ayeaOai elq 
rov ayiov avrov Ka) ^uoitoiov aravpov 
elq to Bvaiaaryjpiov rov ®eov o ®eoq 
'laparjX 'Ivjuovq o Xpiaroq ovk v\yero 
povoq, aXX* yjv u.er avrov 6 iraryp' 
irplv yap eXOetv avrov elq rov crravpov, 
elite roiq dyloiq anoaroXoiq, on ep%e- 
rai apa, k. r. X. ccare ovv ibelxBrj o 
rvizoq aXydeia' hri oi>x dp-nay\Kov 



yjy/jaaro to elvai Icra ®ea> 6 aravpov 
vito^elvaq, oq iariv avrov [Atv rov 
narpoq Aoyoq, Ka) vioq, v\u,uv be ®eoq 
Kvpioq, 6 iir) aravpov v\pv8e)q Kvptcq 

aaj3a&6 el yap ev ra rvircp rr\q 

r.pobiaypaffiq ovra itapeKeXevero 
Mavariq tno rov aylov -nvev^aroq, iva 
a[Au>[/.ovq eiriXe^rirai rovq %ifA.&pQV$ 9 

Ttooq oil [xaXXov o 1 avvdvapy v oq 

Aoyoq, ~Xpiaroq av, avva'ibioq rov 

yevvqaavroq ; p. 230. 0 itarvjp 

ayopevov rov a/xvov (1. forsan vlov) 
&q nrpofiarov in) acpayyv, ovk e%wp/- 

D d 3 



406 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 



" the self-substantial ever-existing Christ, who is 
" equal to the Father on account of the absence of 
" all difference in substance V And at p. 233, " He 
" of Samosata rose up first, speaking wickedly, call- 
" ing the blood of Jesus corrupt, who is Jesus the 
" God of Israel : and he calls the ransom of all 
6i corruption and suffering and death 3 which redeems 
" us from the bondage of corruption, the blood of a 
6i mortal and passible man, because the Lord of 
" glory said to his disciples, Take this and divide 
" it : it is the new testament in my blood : do 
" this '? (Lukexxii. 17, 20.) And at the end of this 
argument, p. 237? he says, " We have proved that 
" the holy blood of our God Jesus Christ is not cor- 
" rupt, nor the blood of a mortal man like ourselves, 
" but of very God k ." This passage, in which Dio- 
nysius says that the Son is coeternal with the Fa- 
ther, ought to be sufficient to acquit him of the 
charge of Arianism : for in the Confession of faith, 
which the Arians presented to Alexander, bishop of 
Alexandria, they expressly assert that the Son " is 
" not eternal, or coeternal with the Father 1 ." In 
the same manner Dionysius speaks of the Son as 
(rvvavapyps tov yevvrjaavrog, equally without beginning 



cBy\ rov ojAoeioovq avrov Aoyov' at 
§vo vitoardaeiq d^upia-roi, kou to 
evvitoo-TccTov tov llocrpoq mvevjAct, o 
yv iv TO) via. 

11 c O ii/vTiOa-rccroq ctei av Xpicrroq, 6 
'laoq ra ira.Tpl Ka.ro, to ajuapd'A'Aa- 
ktov ryq vivoa-rdcreccq oov avvatdioq kou 
tS Kvpla nvevf/.a.Ti. 

i 'Aviary npcoroq 6 1,u[A0(Tarevq 
Aa'Auv atiKO., 'Aeyav (pdaprov to alpa 
rov 'Ivjcrou, oq eari ®eoq 'IcrpavfA 'Ivj- 
crovq, kou to izdo-yjq (pBopaq kou <nd- 
Bovq, K«t Bavdrov Avrypiov, to ii~ayo- 



pot<rav YjiAoLq Sov'Aeiaq rr\q (pBopaq, ouiAoe. 
Bvvjrov kou KaB'fjTov dvBpconov Aeyei, 
Sia to elveTv rov Kvpiov rr\q $o£y/s 
npoq rovq [xaBrjraq, Adfiere k. r. K. 

k Ov (pBaprov to ou^a to ayiov 
rov Seov v}y,£}V 'Ivjvov Xpurrov ovre 
dvBpamov Ka6' yj[Aaq Bvrjrov, dXAa 
®eov uAqBivov. 

1 OvSe ydp ecrrtv d'tbioq, avva'i- 
tioq, vj crvvayevYjroq ra narpi. Atha- 

nas. de Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. 
16. vol. I. p. 730. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 407 



with Him who begat him : but the Arians asserted 
that the Son was not equally without beginning m . 
319- Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. V. p. 237. 

Paul proposes this as the fifth objection. " It is 
" written in the Gospels, that the child grew, and 
" Jesus, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the 
" Virgin Mary, waxed strong, (Luke ii. 40.) How 
" then do you say of that which grew and waxed 
" strong, that it is before the worlds, and equally 
'¥. without beginning with the unbegotten Father, 
" and coeternal n ?" 

Dionysius in his reply refers to the prophecy of 
Isaiah vii. 14. and says, " He adds, Behold a vir- 
" gin shall conceive, and then shews, that the mo- 
f ther of God, i. e. the Virgin, conceived some one, 
P whom we acknowledge as our God, the Word His 

" Son, who is coeternal with the Father. And 

" what is the quality of the child who was laid in 
" the manger ? God, mighty, powerful, the Prince 
" of peace, the Father of the world to come °." And 
" at p. 239, " But the child Jesus, the God of Israel, 
" is the same God, and his years shall not fail?" 
(Psalm cii. 27.) At p. 240 he says, that Paul " called 
" the Father unbegotten, that by this he might 
" prove Christ to be recent and created : for he can- 
" not bear to speak of Christ as the coeternal image 



m Ovt€ [M]v avvavapyriv Ktzi aw- 
ayivrjTov tSs itooxpl tov vlov elvai 

vo^ittIov. Ath. de Syn. p. 739. 

n awe, ovv to uvqov koo. Kpa- 

Tu.iovp.evov Aeyetc, on Kpoaiccviov kou 
avvdvap^ov tS a,ywf\Ty nccLTpi koci 
avvaihiov ; 

0 Kai iirdyei to, 'Ihov rj nvapdevoc, 
iv yaaipl XyxptTai, kcc\ he'iKvvcriv, %ti 
y OeoToxoc, Tiva crvv€Aa,(3ev, tj napQevoc, 



t'qhovoTi, ov tivol rji^eTq iyvapi'<ra[xev 
vj[/,%v |tcev ®eov, tov Be HaTpoc, crvva'i- 

hiov ovtol vlov Aoyov — : tiq Se rj 

ljvva.tj.ic, tov naiblov tov iv (pdrvy 
uvaKAidevTOc. ; ®eoc, la-yvpoq, iljovai- 
aaTTjq, ctpy^cov elp^v/]^ nonrjp tov 
[/.(Wovtoc, alavoc.. 

P To oe noutlov 'Ivjcrotl?, 6 &eoq 
tov 'IcrpavjA, ®eo; ia~Tiv avTo<;, kcc) 

TOC €TYj UVTOV OVK €KA€l\p0V(TtV* 

D d 4 



408 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 

" of the substance of God the Fathers" These 
words might naturally lead us to ask of Mr. Lind- 
sey and the Unitarians, if Dionysius objected to 
Paul, that he called Christ a creature, how could 
he have called him so himself? 

At p. 242. he concludes by saying, " He was 
<e therefore not a man, as we are, who increased in 
" stature and wisdom, but God horn as a child and 
" given unto us as a Son, existing eternally before 
" the worlds : and to us he really increased, and 
" will increase daily, and his years do not fail : for 
" Christ is unchangeable, as being God the Word 

" Jesus our God is the same, and his years 

" shall not fail r " 

320. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. VI. p. 242,3. 

"It is written, that the angel of the Lord ap- 
" peared unto Joseph in a dream, saying, &c. 
" (Matt. ii. 13.) Do you then say, that the child 
" who fled with his mother is coeternal with God 
" and the Father ? And how do you say, that that 
" which goes from place to place, which was born 
" at Bethlehem, is coeternal with Him who is un- 
" begotten 8 ?" 

It is needless to give the answer of Dionysius, 
which is so obvious, and I shall only quote from it 



q To Se elTteHv avrov ayivvvjrov itct- 
repa, ha dia rovrov hetljri Ttpbatyarov 
kou Krlcr^a' ovre yap ave^erai eliceiv 
yapaKrypa avvaihiov rvjq rov Seov 
T.arpoq v-noardtreaq rov Xpiarov. 

r Ovk avOpunoq ovv Kaff Yj^aq o 
av^av rfhiKia kou crotyla, aWa ®eoq 
yevv/]8e)q itaidiov kou ho$e)q y](/tv elq 
vtov, athiov ovra, itpo aluvcov' y^uv koi 
T7j aAffiela ^v^Yjcre koi av^ei Ka6' 
^/.•tepav, kou ra erf} avrov ovk eKAel- 



itova-iv avaXKoiaroq yap o Xpicrroq, 
aq ®eoq Aoyoc — — — 6 @eoq 
'lfjaovq o avroq erri, kou ra eryj av- 
rov ovk eKAetyovo-iv. 

s Teypanrai, on ayyeXoq k. r. A. 
[xrj apa rovro 'Aeyeiq, to fevyov avv 
rrj f^yjrp), crvva'thiov ra ®e&> Ka) nta- 
rpl'y Ka) Ticoq to eK roi:ov elq roirov, to 
yevvfjBev ev Br,0Aee/x., <rvvaihov rovro 
ra ayevvvjra Xeyeiq ; 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 409 



such passages as bear upon the present subject. At 
p. 244, speaking of the text, Out of Egypt have I 
called my Son, he observes, " He speaks of the Son, 
" whom the multitude of the blessed spirits above 
" worship, the one and undivided Christ, coeternal 
" with the Father, equally without beginning, the 
" Creator together with the Father : for Jesus, the 
" Word before the worlds, is God of Israel, as also 
" is the Holy Ghost : but if because Joseph fled into 
" Egypt with Mary, the mother of God, carrying in 
" her arms our refuge and God and strength, he 
" therefore says, that he fled like one of us, as David 
" did from Saul t — 

At p. 247, " Christ, who is God in the Father, is 
" spoken of by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of 
" David, as eternally Christ, who for our sakes en- 
" dured to become flesh, when he was the Word, 
" and remained Christ, the Word, Jesus, God u ." 
At the end, speaking of the heresy of Paul, he says, 
p. 248, " He shall not escape with impunity for 
" speaking blasphemy against the merciful Holy 
" Spirit : for God is a Spirit, (John iv. 24.) as 
" Christ hath taught us, who is Truth, God over 
" all, he that rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall 
" come into Egypt, the Lord (Isaiah xix. 1.) God 
" of Israel, Jesus Christ x ." 

4 Tlov Xeyet, ov itpoaKvve7 vj net) rovrov, ooq eva rav Kaff ypdq, 

roov avco dyluv izvev^druv <nkffivq rov op'itpi (pevyovra, aq rov AauS duo 

eva Ka) dpepiarov Xpiarov, rov avvai- 1,aovA 

§iov rov FLarpoq, avvdvap^ov, avvftv)- u Xpiaroq o ®eoq ev too Harp), 

(juovpyov too Uarpi" 0ecq yap 'lapavjA did itvevixaroq dylov vtco Aavit /oj- 

^lvjaovq o npo alavcov Aoyoq, icq Ka\ ro pvrrerai del Xpiaroq o St' ypdq Ka- 

ayiov TcvevfAa' el 8e did ro cpzvyeiv eiq rate^d^evoq yeveaBai adp^ } Aoyoq 

A'lyvnrov rov 'Icoaqcf) a, pa ry QeoroKa oov, Kal pelvaq Xpiaroq Aoyoq 'lyaovq 

Mapia ev dyKaXaiq (pepovay ryv Ka- o Seoq. 

racpvyyv rjj^ijv Kal ®eov Kal dvvafAiv, x Ov yap ddcpoq dnekevaerai 



410 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS, A.D. 260. 



321. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. VII. p. 248. 

Paul here asks Dionysius to explain to him the 
meaning of the text Phil. ii. 6, &c. for according to 
Paul's own notion, the man Jesus, who^ was called 
Christ, had an existence of his own, like any other 
man, before the title of Christ was given to him by 
God : and what is said of Christ, that he took the 
form of a servant, was quoted by Paul of Samosata 
in support of his opinion : for he argued, that if 
Christ took the form of a servant, that form must 
have existed first, or it could not have been taken. 

I have already observed at p. 123, that Dionysius 
gives an explanation of the whole passage, and I 
have there quoted his words at some length. He 
goes on at p. 257. to comment upon that part of the 
text, " taking the form of a servant, made in the 
" likeness of men : Jesus Christ, who is Lord and 
" God of the apostles, who took the form of a ser- 
" vant, when the mystical supper was ended, rose 
" from supper, Jesus the God of the apostles, and 
" laid aside his garments; and taking a linen 
" cloth he girded himself. (John xiii. 4.) This is 
" the form of a servant : and being found in fash- 
" ion as a man, he was there found as a servant by 
" those who did not seek him : for his disciples did 

" not leave all their goods and follow a servant 

" but they followed him himself, Jesus the Son of 
" God, who submitted to gird himself with a cloth, 
" and to put water in a basin, and wash the feet of 
" servants, he who was by nature Lord, and not by 



(3Xa<T(f)y}iJ.c0V Kara, tov (piXavQpoo'itov 
nvev^a toc, rovdytov' m/ei^a Se 6 ©to?, 



o &v e7T< iravruv ®eoq, o liii vecpiXrjt; 
k.t.X. Kvpiot; o Seoq^laparjX, 'iy<rovi; 
o XpicrTog. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS, A. D. 260. 411 



" nature a servant, who took the form of a servant, 
" being made in the likeness of men y." 

We must remember, that Dionysius is arguing 
against the notion, that Jesus was actually a man in 
a servile station, who was afterwards honoured with 
the title of Christ : and he says, that the disciples 
would not have followed him, had they known him 
to be merely a servant ; but after he had united the 
human nature to the divine, being made in the like- 
ness of men, he then performed acts which are more 
becoming a servant than a master. This explana- 
tion of the words necessarily implies the preexistence 
of Christ. 

At p. 259- " The apostle continues, he humbled 
" himself: do you see what is meant by his humbling 
" himself? It was not the servant that humbled 
" himself, but the lordly character of the servant, 
" which required him to serve, as Pharaoh made 
" Israel to serve : hence he says, that he humbled 
" himself. There is therefore no room given to 
" blasphemers in this place to deny what is said, 
" but their mouths are stopped by his humbling 
" himself and being obedient unto death: for God 
66 disfigured himself and heard the prayer of His 
" suppliants, and He bowed the heavens and came 
" down (Psalm xviii. 9.) to free us, being free, as 
" God and Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ Where- 

y MopcprjV ovv hovXov Xafiuv o Xpi- oirj-^rjTovcriv ccvtov ^ovXoq, ov yap lov- 

ctoi; 'lyo-ovi;, F^vpioc av kou Seoq tuv Xa 7jKoXovd7]o-a,v ol f^adYjrou, KsnaXi- 

airorrToXav, hefavov yevofxtvov tov tcovtzc, navTa otX7* e/ce/vw <xvt£> 

[avo-tikov, iyeipeTai e/c tov Se/irvou o 7}KQXov6ifjo-av tS vim tov ®eov 'lyo-ov, 

®eo£ tSv amoo-ToXoav 'lyo-ovq, kou tI- tS KUTale^a^vcp tia^uo-aaBai Xlv- 

dycri to, liAUTia ccvtov, kou Xafioov " tiqv o (j)v<ra Kvpioi;, Ka) ov% o 

XevTiov hie^wo-ccTO. Auttj Io-t)v '/) <pv<rei. ^ovXoq, 6 Xccfiav to a^^oc. tov 

[A0p<p?i tov SovXov' kou (?yy\^aTi ev- SovXov k. t. X. 
pe0e}{ aq uvQpuno^ e/ce? evpiOr} Tolq 



412 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.260. 



"fore also God hath highly exalted him : yea, for 
" God says to my God Jesus Christ by David, Be 
" thou exalted, O God, above the heavens, and 
" let thy glory be above all the earth, (Psalm 

" Ivii. 5.) The Father hath manifested Christ 

" unto us, who exists eternally with Him, in whom 
" dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 
" (Col. ii. 9.) Observe how St. Paul reveals the 
" mystery : for he says, that the Father and the 
" Spirit dwell bodily in Christ. When Christ, the 
" Word, became flesh, the Father did not cease 
" from being contained in him who became flesh, 
" because Christ became a body : the Word be- 
" came flesh ; and he shews that Christ is not 
" altered by becoming flesh, being always co- 
" eternal with Him that begat him: in him dwell- 
" eth the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily z ." 

P. 262. " Those who are servants of the devils 
" that ran down the steep place are not worthy of 
66 this sight, who say that the Lord of glory was a 



z t Opaq ti Aeyei, on eavrov era- 
irelvaaev ; o dovAoq eavrov ov ranei- 
voi, a/OC vj htG-noreia tov SovAov, 
anairovo-a avrov dov'Aeveiv, ooq o <ba~ 
pao) tov 'laparjA KarebovXu<rev — ovk 
cSo^tj ovv yj&pa role ^Aacrcp^oiq iv 
Tovra dOeryjo-at rep pvjTa' i{/.<ppdrrei 
Se avrovq 6 raireivoocraq eavrov, y.e- 
Xpi Oavdrov vTir\KOoq yevopevoq* eav- 
rov yap o ®eoq idva-airrjcre, Ka) iir- 
vjKOVcre rvjq hericrecoq rav iKerav av- 
rov' Ka) €KXivev ovpavovq koi Kar- 
efiv], efzeAearQai vjftdq, iAevBepoq av, 
uq Seoq, Ka) Kvptoq ryq Sof^*?, 'lrj- 
crovq Xpiaroq hio Ka) o ®eoq av- 
rov virepvipcocre, va), 6 Seoq yap Ae- 
yei tS @eo) [aov 'lycTGv X-piarS did 
Aavih, 'T^&^vjTf- in) rovq ovpavovq o 



Selq, Ka) in) ndaav rrjv yrjv v) do^a 

gov—, 'O Ylaryp i(pavepucrev vjyt.iv 

rov ovra crvv air a de) Xpiarov, iv 
a, KarotKei tcccv to nArjpcoy.a rrjq 
OeorYjToq <roo[ianKO)q' aKovere, ituq 
Aeyei ro ^varr^piov 6 tepoq dicoo-ro- 
Aoq UavAoq, to yap acc^ariKaq Kar- 
oiKetv rov Hare pa, Ka) ro itvev^a 
iv rS> XpurrS). 'EireiSy/ <rdp^ ye- 
yovev 6 Aoyoq 6 Xpurroq, ov napd 
ro yeveaBai ovv aa[/.a rov Xpicrov, 
ovk eizavecrTfi o Uaryp rov %api- 
aO^vai ra yevopeva vapKi' <rdpE, 6 
Aoyoq yeyove' Ka) "Se'iKvvaiv on arpe- 
Tzroq o Xpurroq yevopevoq <rdp% y de) 
crvvaiftioq S>v tov yevvqcravToq' iv av- 
tS KaroiKei ndv to irAvjpafAa rrjq 
OeorrjToq aaaariKuq. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260, 413 



" servant, or one of those men who are preeminently 
" rewarded : for the scripture does not teach us, 
$ that we are to bow the knee to the form of a ser- 
" vant and swear by him ; for we have been taught 
" to have no other God but our God : it was not a 
" holy man, nor a servant, who made the heaven and 
" the earth : and let the gods, who did not make 
" the heaven and the earth, be destroyed beneath 
" the whole heaven together with their worship- 
" pers a ." 

3%2. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. VIII. 
p. 263. 

In this passage Paul brings an objection to the 
divinity of Christ, from the circumstance^ of his 
parents missing him on their return from Jerusalem, 
and finding him in the temple. After quoting the 
passage, he asks, " How can you glorify him who 
" was twelve years old, and sought after, on account 
" of whom his parents were grieved until they found 
" him, if he is without beginning and coeternal with 
" the Father b ?" 

The answer to this objection is the same as that 
made to all the others, and Dionysius, in the course 
of his reply, says, " The mother of God returned 
" seeking her Lord and God, him who became her 
" Son c :" and again, at p. 265. 66 The mother of my 

a Tavryq ava^ioi rqq Oeaplaq ot pavov koi tvjv yyjv ovk inot'/ja-av, airo- 

hovXoi rav KaraKpyfAviaOevruv hai- XeaQoicav vizoKarudev navroq rov ov- 

fA.wav f ol Xeyovreq, rov Kvpiov r^q pavov Ka) ot irpouKwovvreq avroTq. 

hoU'/jq hovXov, % tva rav Kar e^alpe- b II aq avrov ho^dXeiq rov S«Se- 

rov he^iKaicofxevav' ov yap ovraq ^aq Kaery koi Z^rov^evov, £)Y ov oi yovetq 

hihaaKei rj ypaffi, 'tva y*op(pr\ hovXov us'bvvavro ecoq evpov, el olroq avap^oq 

KatAipa [/.ev yovv i<a) o[/.oo~a[Aev iv av- Ka) <rvvaitioq rov Warpoq ; 

ra' ovhe yap e$i&a%0yj//,ev kyjav %ebv c C H (xev BeoroKoq vneo-rpexpe rov 

erepov nXyv rov ®eov y][a%v' oi?% ayioq Kvpiov avr^q Ka) @eov Zflrovara rov 

avOpuitoq, ovre hovXoq eno'iyae rov ov- yevo^evov avrrjq vtov. p. 264. 
pavov Ka) ryjv yrjv' 6eo) he, ot rov ov- 



414 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 

" God says to my God, We have sought thee sor- 
f rowing. It is written in the prophet Hosea, (xii. 
" 4.) They wept with the Holy Spirit, and made 
" supplication unto me ; they found me in my house, 
" and there I spake with them : but the Lord God 
" the Almighty shall he their memorial d . Do you 
" see where he was found who was sought with 
" weeping? There the Lord God spoke to them, 
" saying, How is it that ye sought me ? Wist ye 
" not that I must be in my Father's house e ? He 
" says by the prophet, They found me in my house, 
" and in the Gospels, / must be in my Father's 
" house : for all things that the Father hath are 
« his f ." 

323. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qiicest. IX. p. 266. 

It is plain from this question, that when Christ 
was called God by Dionysius and the catholic church, 
they were understood by Paul to mean that he was 
the God, who is spoken of by Isaiah xl. 28. where 
we translate the words, The everlasting God, the 
Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth 3 &c. 



d This is very different from 
our version. 

e It is plain that Dionysius 
attached this meaning to the 
words iv ro7q rov narpoq pov, (Luke 
ii. 49.) which is probably the 
true meaning. The word house 
is supplied in the Syriac, Per- 
sian, and Armenian versions, (vid. 
Griesbach.) and in Dialog. I. 
contra Macedon. (Ath. vol. II. 
p. 554.) we read iv ra o'Iku rov 
Tturpoq (Mv. So Epiphanius ex- 
plains our Saviour to have meant, 
on 0 vaoq eiq ovo[/.<% &eov, tout6Tt; 
rov avrov irarpcq, o}Koho[/.Yi6'/]. Hser. 

XXX. vol. I. p. 155. 



1 Aeyei y [xrjr^p rov ®eov pov rS 
Gea [xov, on ahwafA-eOa ^rovvreq 
ce* yeypanrai iv rS irpocp'/jrTi 'ficr/ye, 
Xeycov, 'Ev nvevf/.a.rt ccyia eKXavcav, 
<p'/]<ri, kou idevjQyo-dv [/.ov, iv ra o'Ikcc 
[Aov evpecrdv /xe' kou iKe7 iXdXt\<ra. 
Tzpoq avrovq' o he Kvpioq o ®eoq o nav- 
roKpdrccp errai [/.v^oa-vvov avrav. 
c Opac ttov evpeO'/] o ^firov^evoq [xera, 
KAavdixov ; ii<e7 iXdX'q<rev avro7q' 
Kvpioq 0 ®eoq Xeyav, T/ on iZ^reire 
u.e ; ovk o'thare, (brjalv, on iv ro7q 
rov Ttctrpoq \xov oei [xe eivou , ev rep 
oIku jAov evpeadv y.e, Xeyei hia, rov 
irpocpyjrov' iv he evocyyeXlotq, 'Ev ro7q 
rov inarpoq [xov he7 //.e elvou' <ndvra, 
yap ocrcc fc%ei 6 iraryp, airov iariv. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 415 



Paul's version was rather different, but equally ex- 
pressive : he says, " It is written in Isaiah, The 
66 mighty God, the everlasting, hunger eth not, nei- 
44 ther is weary : there is no searching of his un~ 
" der standing. But it is written of Jesus, that he 
" both hungered and was weary. But the everlast- 
" ing Lord, as I said before, is not hungry nor 
" weary." 

Dionysius says in his reply, p. 267, u Concerning 
" God being hungry or not, or eating or not eating, 
" no one can tell how it is : but I know that it is 
" written, The God of gods hath said, If I were 
" hungry, I would not tell thee : (Psalm 1. 12.) and 
" we find that this same God is Jesus Christ ; that 
" when he is hungry, he says to no one, I am 
"hungry; but angels coming after his temptation 
" ministered unto him. It is written, Will I eat 
" the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats ? 
" (Psalm 1. 13.) Thus saith God: but He did not 
" say, I have not eaten, for God cannot lie ; for He 
" is Truth : Abraham set before God the calf which 
" he had dressed £, and the loaves which Sarah 
" baked ; and God ate, and did not conceal from 
" him that I will return unto thee according to the 
" time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. (Gen. 
" xviii. 10.) Observe God saying, I will return to 
" thee, &c. Is it not plain that he is the same who 
" says to his disciples, I go and come to you, and 
" will receive you with me ? (John xiv, 2, 3.) This 
" is the God who said, If I were hungry, I would 
" not tell thee : he is the same, and is not changed : 
" the Word who became flesh, who was God and 

s 'Enotya-e, which is an instance in how many senses Dionysius 
used the word. See p. 396. 



416 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D. 260. 



" willingly hungered, does not say, I am hun~ 

Afterwards, having quoted those words of Isaiah, 
(xl. 31.) They that wait upon God shall run and 
not be weary, or, as he translates it, and not be 
hungry ; he says that it may be asked, " Why 
" then did not the apostle find it so ? but he writes, 
" that thrice he suffered shipwreck : he does this to 
" stop your wicked belief, and to prove that Christ 
" was not merely a holy man, but holy God : for 
" men entertained Paul who was holy, one of whom 
" was Onesimus the friend of the apostle — but we 
" find none of these things in Christ : but we find, 
" according to what is written in the Old Testa- 
" ment, that the same God who spake is come to 
" us : he who returned to Abraham according' to 
" the time of life, who ate with Abraham, the same 
*' came to us and was hungry, who said, If I were 
6C hungry, I would not tell thee : the Word being 
" made flesh was hungry, who giveth food to all 
" flesh, Jesus Christ i ." 



h Hep) Be tov Tteivda-ai tov ®eov, 
*j [ayj -weivda-at, rj (payeiv rj yyj (pa- 
yeTVf tov rponov ovodlq hvvaTai <ppd- 
erai' ot'Ba Be oti yeypa-KTai, oti dnev 
o ®ebq tccv 6ecov, lav nzivdcra ov yn\ 
voi enro)' evpi<TKQ[A.tv Be oti avToq io-Tiv 
o &eoq 'Iyi&qvs o 'KpicrTo'q' oti neivd- 
aaq ov^ev) elirev, oti neiva' dXXd 
izpo<reXQovTeq ol dyyeXoi ueros tov 
Tzeipacryov SiyKovovv avra' ykypa^Tai 
Se, [A7] (pdyayat Kpia Tavpav y alya 
Tpdycov itiayai ; were/, (p'/j<r), Xeyei o 
%eoq. dXX* ovk dlnev oti ovk €(payov' 
dipevbriq ydp o Stoq' dX'fjQeia ydp' 
TtapeQ'/jKev 'Afipady (1. forsan dXr\- 
Qeia ydp itapiBriKev 1 'Afipady) tw 
0ea to yoa^dpiovo inoi'/jae, koi Tovq 



a^vyovq ovq enexpe "Zappa, Ka) e(payev 
o ®eoq Ka) ovk dneKpv^ev avrov, oti 
enaveXevcToyai itpoq ere elq ccpaq, Ka) 
eo~rai tt) Zappa vloq' aKovere ©eot>, 
inaveXevtroyaL itpoq ere elq oopaq' dp 
ov (pavepov Iotiv oti avToq i<ntv o 
Xeyccv ToTq yaQyjTaiq, oti virdyco i<a) 
epy/iyai irpoq vyaq, Ka) TiapaXrjipoyai 
vyaq ytT iyov ; ovToq o Seoq 6 (Xpt\~ 
Kuq, Idv ireivdo-to, ov yfj croi eircco' 
avToq io~Ti Ka) ovk YjXXoicoTat, yevo- 
uevoq crdp£, o Aoyoq ctv Seoq Ka) irei- 
vacraq 6kuv, ovk etrev oti Tveivu. 

* P. 269. — — T0VTO TtOld'l GOV 

T7jv KaKOTZKTTiav iycppayvjvai, oti cvk 
dvQpccnoq r)v dyioq 6 Xpia-Toq, dXXd 
@eoq dyioq' " ■ « tovtwv Be ouBev evp£~ 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 417 



324. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. X. p. 270. 

Paul having quoted those words of Peter, (Acts 
ii. 36.) that God hath made that same Jesus, whom 
ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ, proceeds 
to ask, how it could be that he was made Lord and 
Christ by God : " For your writings say, that he who 
" was crucified was God, and coeternal with the Fa- 
<c ther; but he who was crucified says himself to Mary, 
" Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended to my 
u Father. (John xx. 17.) But you do not suffer it 
" to be said, that he was not yet ascended ; but you 
" write every where, that he was coeternal with the 
" Father, though he said, / am not yet ascended to 
« the Father k ." 

Dionysius begins his answer with acknowledging 
unequivocally, " that I have written, and now write, 
" and confess and believe and preach, that Christ is 
" coeternal with the Father, the only-begotten Son 
" and Word of the Father 1 ." Afterwards he says, 
" I will now come with God's assistance to explain 
66 what is meant by the words, God hath made him 
" Lord and Christ. It is written, that God so 
" loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten 
" Son into the world : Christ Jesus, who exists eter- 
" nally, Christ the Lord, is become our God : and 



<TK0fA€v in) Xpicrrov' dXX' evpla-Kopev 
oti otra, iv rrj TtaXaia yeypamai, 
Xeyav, 6 ®eo$, a avToq iicayqkQ^ r,po<; 
•fj^dq, o icpoq *A8padu. inaveXQav ei$ 
&pa<;' ° (pccyav npo<; 'A(3pad[/,, iXQcov 
irpoc vjudi; ineivacrev, 6 elp'/jKcoc;, iccv 
neivdcru, ov y'q <ro: elizu' crapi; yevo- 
fJLtvoi; o Aoyoq liKzlvaaev, o SiSou? tqo- 
(pYjU itaca-fi capKi 'Itjo-ou>j o XpiTToc. 

^ Td yap nap i)f/.£v ypacpewa 
®eov e%e; roy io-Tavpa)[A€VCV, Kal <tvv- 
aPiiov t§ HaTpl' avT0<; de Xeyei o 



VTavpccQeic,, Mvj uov LnTov, <p7jcn t?j 
yiapia, ovtvco yap dva^e^'/jKa irpo^ 
tov vaTepa t uov' dXX' vpuq ovk dv- 
e-xjecrOe eli:etv, on ouTta dvefi-/}' dXXd 
ypd(ptT€ TtavTay^ov, on crvva'tbioi; r)v 
tov YlaTpoc, o Xeyav, ovtra dvafie- 
$-f\Ka npos tov WaTepa. 

1 'Oti [lev eypccipa, koi ypd(pv, 

KGU 0[AoXoy£, Kal TIKTTeVQJ, KOi K'fjpVT- 

to) crvvaihov t% WaTp\ tov Xpi<7Toi\ 
tov <{j.ovoyGvr\ vtov koi Aoyov rov 
UaTpos. 

e e 



418 DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 260. 

J 

" we became his people, who before as sheep had 
" gone astray ; but now we have returned to the 
" Shepherd and Bishop of our souls: (1 Pet.ii. 25.) 
" we have returned to him who existed eternally, 
" Christ the Lord : for Christ the Lord was born 
" for our sakes : for as to us a child was born, the 
" Son, who is eternal, the same is become my sal- 
" vation : we were before not his people, as we knew 
" him not. The Word of the Father was not pro- 
" duced by a word, like the multitude of the blessed 
" spirits above ; but being the Word of the sub- 
" stance of the Father 3 he was begotten : for the 
« Word, Jesus Christ, was not created m ." 

P. 274}. " And as to the true Jesus, the God of 
" Israel, saying, / am not yet ascended to my Fa- 
" ther, they had not yet seen him going up whither 
" he was before : these are the words of God the 
" Word, when he was man, What if ye see the Son 
" of man going up whither he was before ? (John 
" vi. 62.) and again, No man hath ascended up to 
" heaven 9 but he that came down from heaven, the 
" Son of man, who is in heaven. He is become my 
" God and Lord, Jesus, who is one, the Word: there 
(6 is one substance of him and one person : it is he 
u to whom all things were subjected by the Father ; 
" not being inferior to the Father, he prayed for us, 

m ''EXQoc toIvvv <txjv @e5) eV< tvjv yap iyevero XpurToq Kvpioq' uxritep 

div)yv)<riv, t/ to elpr][xevov, ori Koci ydp vj(uv iyevv/jOv] TratStov o vloq, oov 

Xpio-Tov kou Kvpiov avrov o @eoq aihioq, avToq eyeveTo y.01 elq (TUT^- 

iitoir}(7e' yeypaitTai oti ovraq o Seoq plow' y[Ae7q ovk ypev nakai Xaoq av- 

'/lya/K^f. k. t. X, yeyovev Vj[x7v elq rov, KaBoTi ^yvoov^eV ov Xoycp itap- 

Seov o Xpt<TToq 'lyo-ovq o tov ae) Xpi- y\%Bf\ o Aoyoq tov Uarpoq, coairep 

a-Toq Kvpioq, Kai ^e7q eyevopeOa av- twv avw dylm irvev^aTccv nXyOvq, 

tov Xaoq, ol noTe ooq itpo^ara itXava- aXXa Aoyoq w e/c Tvjq VTCOfTTao-eooq 

[Aevoi, vvv he k. t. X. eVt tov ovza ae) tov itaTpoq eyiWf\Bf\' ov yap KTicrToq 

XptcrTov Kvpiov iTt€o-Tpd<pY)[A,ev' rjfMV 6 Aoyoq 'Ivjirovq o HpitXToq. 



DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.260. 419 



" saying, Holy Father, sanctify them, keep them 
" in the world" (John xvii. 11, 17 n .) 

At p. 277. he says, " But Christ died for all : let 
¥ us therefore consider him that endured such oppo- 
" sition to himself for us sinners, that we may not 
" be weary and faint in our souls : it is he that 
" came down to Abraham ; he came down to Moses 
" to free the people ; and now in the latter times 
" coming for our sakes, not in the form of fire, but 
" was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, 

* the Holy Ghost having come upon her For 

96 the only-begotten God, the Word, who came down 
" from heaven, was conceived and born of the Virgin 
" Paradise that possesses all things : the Holy Ghost 
" came upon her, the power of the Highest over- 
66 shadowed her, and the holy thing that was born 
" was the child Jesus ; the mighty God, the power- 
" ful, endured the cross despising the shame °." 



n Ka* n€p\ rov elneTv rov d,Av)6tvov 
'Ivjixouv rov ®eiv '\o~parfA, on ovito) 
k, r. X. ovbiicco 7)o-acv Becopyo-avreq 
avrov dvepyjiyevov oitov vjv ro itpore- 
pov' avrov iari (j>avrj rov avBpcoTtio-Qev- 
roq ®eov Aoyov, to, iav ovv 'thrjre 
k. r. X. ■■ avroq iyevero yoi €iq 
®eov kou Kvpiov 'l'/jo-ovv o elq av Ao- 
yoq' yla avrov vTco'cracnq kou %v it poo- - 
utcqv' avroq itxriv a viterdyq ret, 
ndvra icapa rov Harpoq' ovk av 
k'Aarrov rov Harpoq vnep 7j[x5v mpocr- 
vjv^aro, Aeyuv, Tldrep ayie k. r. X. 

° c O Xpio-roq viiep irdvrav 
diteBavev' dvaAoyicrayeBa ovv rov 
rvjv roiavrrjv vi:o[/.€y.€V^Kora i/nep rSv 
dyaproiAav elq eavrov dvnAoyiav, 
'Iva ft?) Ka.[AU[Aev raiq -tyvyjjuq Ik'Avo- 
[*€V0t' avroq icTTiv o Kara(3aq iit) 
'Afipady' avroq in) Mawcnj Kare^y 
efeXtVttai rov XaoV kou vvv Si' rjfAaq 



eV iayjxrm iXBoov ovk iv ay^qyari, 
itvpoq, dXXd crvveX'^cpBrj iv yacrp) 
irapBevov Mapiaq, rov dylov Ttvevya-- 

roq iizeXBovroq iir avr'f\v 'O yap 

e£ ovpavov Kara(3aq jxovoyevyjq ®eoq 
Aoyoq iyevvrjBrj Kvo(popvjBe)q e/c izap- 
BeviKOv Ylapa^eiaov 'lyjivroq raitavra' 
itvevya ayiov iii avrvjv, hvvauiq 
vxpia-rov iTUo~KidC,ovo-a, ko.) to yev- 
vojytvov ayiov ro -naiViov 'Ivjo-ovq, a 
lo-%vpoq ®eoq> o i^ovaiaa-rrjq vtteyeive 
o-ravpov alo-yvvrjq KaracppovYjcraq. 

I have translated this passage 
according to the reading and 
punctuation of the edition to 
which I refer, that of Rome 
1796. A Roman editor would 
be pleased with finding the 
Virgin Mary called, " the vir- 
" gin Paradise that possesses 
" all things." But perhaps we 

E e 2 



420 DIONYSIUS ROM ANUS, A. D. 260. 



Dionysius Romanus. A. D. 260. 

The history of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 
has also led to the mention of his namesake, who 
was bishop of Rome. Of the writings of the latter, 
only a few fragments are preserved in the works of 
Athanasius ; nor is much more known of his history 
than that he succeeded Xystus or Sixtus the Second, 
as bishop of Rome in the year 259, the see having 
remained vacant nearly a year. He died in 269. 

We have seen that he wrote to the bishop of 
Alexandria concerning the Sabellian heresy ; and 
Athanasius informs us, that as soon as he heard of 
the charges which were brought against Dionysius 
of Alexandria, " he wrote at once against the fol- 
" lowers of Sabellius, and against those opinions for 
" which Arius was afterwards expelled from the 
" church ; declaring that the opinion of Sabellius, 
" and of those who say that the Word of God is a 
" creature, or workmanship, and made, though di- 
" rectly opposite to each other, were equally im- 
" pious p." In another work he tells us, "that when 
" some brought accusations to the bishop of Rome 
" against the bishop of Alexandria, as if he had 



should read Kvotyop'tfeit; eK na.p$€- 
vikgv Utxpahe'urov' tov '^ovrcq to, 
tctxvra. weuucc aytov eV ccvrrjV, the 

Holy Spirit of Him that pos- 
sesses all things came upon her. 
Or if we follow the present 
punctuation, the words exovroq 
to, nocvTa may be taken to signify 
that Mary bore Jesus in her 
womb, who might truly be call- 
- ed every thing : Jesus, who was 
all in all was conceived by the 
Virgin : as Athanasius says, av- 



Tot; hvvccroi; Si/ kou fyfAiovpyoi; twv 
okav iv T?j nupOeva KaracrKevcc^ei 
iavrtf va.lv to aa/xa. De Incarn. 
8. vol. I. p. 54. So also Epi- 
phanius, iraq ovk av e'liro/Aev nrav- 
TYjV lAeydXyv, yup'f\Gcc<T<xv rlv ay^a- 
j97jT6f, W ovpavoq kcu yvj %cep€iv ov 
bvvavrai; Hagr. XXX. vol. I. 
p. 1157: and again, Haer. 
LXXVIII. 8. p. 1040. 

p De Sentent. Dionys. Alex. 
I. p. 252. c. 13. 



DIONYSIUS ROMANUS, A.D. 260. 421 



" called the Son a creature, and not con substantial 
" with the Father, the synod at Rome was offended, 
" and the bishop of Rome sent the judgment of 
" them all to his namesake V 

In another work he gives us the sentiments of 
Dionysius in his own words. The bishop, after 
having condemned those who opposed the catholic 
doctrine of the Trinity, continues thus : " Nor would 
" one find less fault with those who think that the 
" Son is a creature, supposing that the Lord was 
" made, like any of the things that are really made; 
" whereas the holy scriptures testify that he had a 
" suitable and becoming generation, not a kind of 
" formation and creation. It is therefore no small 
" blasphemy, but the greatest, to say that the Lord 
st was in any sense formed. For if the Son was 
" made, there was a time when he was not ; but he 
" was always, since he is in the Father, as he him- 

<e self says. (John xiv. 11.) And why should I 

" discuss this matter more at length to you who are 
" spiritual, and clearly understand the absurdities 
" which arise from calling the Son a creature ? 
" which, as it appears to me, must have escaped the 
" attention of those persons who began this doctrine, 
" and therefore they have altogether erred from 
" the truth, misunderstanding the meaning of those 
" words of the holy and prophetical scriptures, The 
" Lord established me in the beginning of his 
i( ways. (Prov. viii. 22.) For there is not one mean- 
" ing only to the word established, (eW-no-ev,) as you 
" well know : for we must understand established 
" in this place to mean, He placed me over the 



^ De Synodis, p. 757. c. 43. 

e e 3 



422 DIONYSIUS ROMAN US, A. D. 260. 



" works which were made by Him, but which were 
" made by the Son himself : but established cannot 
" be taken in this place for made: for there is a 
" difference between establishing and making : Is 
" not He thy Father that hath bought thee ? hath 
" He not made thee and established thee ? (Deut. 
" xxxii. 6.) as Moses says in his great song in Deu- 
" teronomy. In answer to whom we might also say, 
" O rash and venturous men, is the firstborn of 
" every creature himself a creature? he that was 
" conceived of the womb before the morning, who 
" said in the person of Wisdom, Before all the hills 
"he begetteth me? (Prov. viii. 25.) and in many 
" places of the holy scriptures one may find the 
" Son spoken of as begotten, but not as made: by 
" which passages those persons are plainly convicted 
" of forming false notions concerning the generation 
" of the Lord, who dare to speak of his divine and 
" ineffable generation as a creation r ." 



r Ov tAelov §' av Tiq KaTau.e^(poi~ 

TO KOU TOVC, Hol'fjlAa TOV VlOV elvai 

hofiafyvTac, kou yeyovevai tqv Kvpiov, 
axncep ev ti ovTaq ye vo{/.evav, vQfA.iCpv~ 
Taq' rav Qetcov Xoyiav yevvqaiv avra 
rrjv upy,oTTovo~av kou 'npeitovcrav, aXX* 
ov'x) irXdo'iy Tiva koci TtOfqo-iv Trpocr- 
[Accp-vpovvruv. B\dc<r<p'/][A0V OVV 0V TO 
th%oj/, [Aeyicrrov pev ovv, yjapo'Koi'qTOv 
tpoitov Tiva Xeyeiv tov Kvptov. Et 
yap yeyovev vloq, 'qv ot€ ovk %y" a,e\ 
$e r /jv, ei ye iv t® WaTpl e<TTiv, aq 

avroq (p-qcrt Kal tI dv eiii nXeov 

nepl tovtcov irpoq vydq hiaXeyoli^v, 
itpoq avdpaq TzvevjxaTocpopovq kou tra- 
(pZq entcrTayevovq Taq ccronlaq Taq £k 
tov •nol-qu.a Xeyeiv tov vlov avaKvuTov- 
<raq ; atq y.01 hoKOvii yvq itpoaeay^qKe- 
vai tov vovv ol KaQ'qyqo-dyevoi Tijq 
hotjrjc, TavTqq, kou hiu. tovto KOfiihrj 



tov dX-qBovq hi'q^aprqKevai, eTepcoq vj 
(3ovXeTai TocvTrj 7] Beta kou npocp'qTiKy) 
ypacpY], to, Kvptoq eKTitre [Ae apyjqv 
ohav avTOv, eKhe^dy.evoi. Ov [/.lot yap 
rj tov "EKTicrev, uq i'o-Te, <Tr\\A.aa la' 
' E/cTio-e yap evTavBa a.Kov<neov, dvTt 
tov, 'Envea-TTjo-e To7q vit avTOv yeyo- 
votiv epyoiq, yeyovocrt he hi avTov tov 
vlov' ovy) he ye to"Ektict€ vvv XeyotT* 
otv eiii tov 'Eno'iycre' htacpepet yap 
tov notYja-ai to KTiaai. Ovk avToq 
ovToq aov TcaT^ip eKTricruTo <re KOti 
eico'if\(Te ere kou eKTtae ere ; tS? iv tS 
AevTepovofila [AeydXrj <y§^ o Mdcavjq 
(p'qcri. Tlpoq ovq kou e'iitoi av Tiq, a 
pi\pQKiv$vvoi avBpcciroi, nolr^a c Trpoo- 
TOTOKOq r.dcry}q KTiaeuq, 6 eK yaaTpoq 
vcpo ecca-(popov yevwq6e)q, o elnav aq 
IZocpta, Upo de tidvTtcv fiovvuv yevva 
/xe ; KcCi iroXKa^ov he twv Qelcov Xo- 



CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D. 269. 423 

325. Concilium Antiochenum, A. D. 269. 

We have yet another document connected with 
the history of these two bishops, in some letters of 
the council of Antioch concerning the heresy of 
Paul of Samosata. This council was held in the 
year 269, as mentioned above ; and after many sit- 
tings the Fathers excommunicated Paul. Before 
however they proceeded to this step, they addressed 
a letter to him, in which their object was to give to 
Paul a summary of their religious creed, which, as 
they say, " had been preserved in the catholic 
" church from the time of the apostles to that 
" day." 

The letter is a long one, and it will be necessary 
to transcribe nearly the whole of it. The Fathers 
begin with professing their belief in one uncreated 
invisible God ; after which they go on to say, " We 
" acknowledge and preach, that this begotten Son, 
" the only-begotten Son, is the image of the invisi- 
" ble God, begotten before all creation, the Wisdom 
" and Word and Power of God, who was before the 
" worlds, God, not by foreknowledge, but in essence 
" and substance Son of God, as we have known him 
" in the Old and New Testament. But if any one 
" should contend, that we are not to believe and 
" acknowledge the Son of God to be God before the 
" foundation of the world, and should say that we 
" make two Gods, if we preach the Son of God to 
" be God, we consider such an one to depart from 

yiav yeyevvri<r6izi aXk* ov yeyovivat Sefc&v Kai appyrov yevvr^iv Xeyetv 
tov vlov Xeyoptvov evpot rt$ av' v(ff to\[/.covt€<;. Athanas. de Decret. 

av KarcMpccvai; i\ey%ovrat tcc \pevty Syn. NlC. C. 26. p. 23 1. et 

irep) ty)$ tov Kvplov yevvya-ecoq vtto- apud Routh Reliq. Sacr. torn. 
Xa[A(3uvovT€i;, 01 nofya-iv avTOv TVjv III. 180. 

E e 4 



424 CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A. D. 269. 



" the ecclesiastical canon, and all the catholic church 
" agrees with us. For concerning him it is written, 
" Thy throne,, O God, is for ever and ever, &c. 
" (Psalm xlv. 6.) and again Isaiah, Our God repay - 
" eth judgment, and will repay ; He himself will 
" come and save us, he. (xxxv. 4.) and again, In thee 
" shall they pray, for God is in thee ; and there is 
u no God but thou, for thou art God, and we 
" knew it not, the God of Israel, the Saviour : (xlv. 
" 14.) and the apostle says, Of whom as concerning 
" the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God bless- 
" ed for ever. Amen. (Rom. ix. 5.) in which pas- 
" sages the words who is over all, and there is no 
" God but thou, are to be understood with reference 

" to all created things and all the divinely in- 

" spired scriptures declare the Son of God to be 
tc God. We believe that he always was with the 
" Father, and fulfilled his Father's will in the crea- 
" tion of the universe : for He spake, and they 
" were made ; He commanded, and they were cre- 
" ated. (Psalm cxlviii. 5.) He who commands an- 
" other, must command some one who we are per- 
" suaded was no other than the only-begotten Son 
" of God, himself God, to whom also He said, Let 
" us make man," &c. They then quote John i. 3. 
and Col. i. 16. to shew that the world was created 
by Christ "as really existing and acting, being at 
once the Word of Gr>d, by whom the Father made 
" all things, not as by an instrument, nor as by 
< ( [His own] knowledge, which had no substantial 
" existence : for the Father begat the Son as a living 
" self-substantial energy, working all things in all 
" things : nor was the Son a spectator only, or 
" merely present, but actually efficient for the ere- 



CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A. D. 269. 425 



" ation of the universe— It was he who, fulfilling 

" his Father's counsel, appeared to the patriarchs 

" being spoken of one while as an Angel, one 

" while as the Lord, one while as God. For it is 
" impious to think that the God of the universe is 
" called an Angel : but the Angel of the Father is 
" the Son, himself being Lord and God s ." 

P. 473. " We believe also that the Son, who was 
" with the Father, being God and Lord of all created 
" things, was sent from heaven by the Father, and 
" took our flesh and became man : wherefore the 
" body, which he had from the Virgin, contained all 
" the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is un- 
" changeably united with the Godhead and become 
" God : on which account this same God and man, 



8 Tovtov he tov vlov yevvrfcov, \jlo- 
voyevrj vlov, eiKova tov aopaTov ®eov 
TvyyjxvovT ol, izpuvoTOKOv i ud<j r /\q kt'i- 
ffecoc, uocpiav Kai Aoyov koi hvvayiv 
®eov, itpo alwviuv ovra, ov irpoyvacrei 
a,XX' ovcria Kai vnoaTatrei ®eov, ®eov 
vlov, evTe itaXaia Kai via 8<a&j/o] 
iyvcoKOTtq ojj.oXoyovjA.ev Ka\ K'qpvaao- 
y,ev. tV 0? §' av avTiyayflTai tov vlov 
tov ©eov ®eov yf\ elvai itpo rara- 
fioXviq KOG-pov nuTTtveiv Ka)by.o'Aoye7v, 
(pdcTKav hvo Geovq KaTayyeXXeaSai, 
lav 0 vloq tov @eov ®eoq K'/jpvcxa-yjTai, 

TOVTOV dXXoTptOV TOV kKKA'f\<TiaG1 IKOV 

Kavovoq r\yovjxeQa' koi ivaorai al KaS- 
cXiKai iKhXycrlai crvycpccvovcrtv quiv. 
Ylepl yap tovtov yeypairTai, (Psalm 
xlv. 6. Isaiah xxxv. 4. xiv. 14. 
Rom. ix. 5.) tov, 0 av eV* ndvTcov, 
Ka) tov, TtA-qv crov, voovyjvov £it) irdv- 

tcov yevvrjTcov koi nacrai al 8eo- 

nvevcnoi ypacpai ®eov tov vlov tov 

®eov [/.'/jVvov<r iv Tovtov nuTTevo- 

y.ev avv tS UaTp) ale) ovTa e/cire- 
•nXypccKevai to naTpiKov [3ovA'/j[Aa Ttpoq 
Tyv kt'ktiv tuv tkw' AvToq yap k. 



t. X. 0 he evTeXXouevoq eTepa evreXXe- 
Tai tiv'i %v ovk aXXov TtenelvjA.eQa vj 
tov [Aovoyevrj vlov tov ®eov ®eov, a> 

Kai elite, YloLrjo~OL>j/.ev k. t. X. ovtoj 

he cbq aArjOwq ovToq koi ivepyovvToq, 
&>q Aoyov atxa Ka) ®eov' hi' ov 6 
TlaTvjp ndvTa Tter.oi-fiKev, oi% aq hi 
opydvov, ovh' o)q hi' eTTKnyf/s/jq dvvr.o- 
(TTaTov' yevvYjOravToq yev tov UaTpoq 
tov vlov a>q X^aav ivspyeiav koi iv- 
vi:ocrTaTov, evepyovvTa to, irdvTa ev 
TcdaiV ovyj fiXenovToq he yovov ovhe 
izapovToq ixovov tov vlov, dXXa Ka) 
evepyovvToq npoq tv}v tuv oXccv h'/jjMOvp- 

ylav, aq yeypaitrai k. t. X. 

Tovtov elvai, 'bq eKirX'/jpav t^v itaTpi- 
K7]v fiovXyv Toiq naTpiapy^aiq cpaive- 
Tai, Ka) hiaXeyerai ev Toiq avTaiq 
uepiKonaiq koi To7q avroiq KecpaXaloiq, 
ttOTe [A6v aq dyyeXoq, itOTe he aq Kv- 
pioq, 7roTe he @eoq yapTvpovyevoq. Tov 
y.ev yap Seov twv oXcov dcrefieq dyye- 
Xov vofAicrai KaXe7cr6at' 0 he dyyeXoq 
tov UaTpoq 0 vloq eaTiv, avToq Kvpioq 

Ka) ®elq av. Apud Routh Reliq. 
Sacr. II. 466. 



426 CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D. 269. 

" Jesus Christ, was predicted in the law and the 
" prophets, and is believed by the whole church 
" under heaven to be God, and to have humbled 
" himself from having been equal to God, but to 
" have been man, and of the seed of David accord- 
" ing to the flesh. It was God who performed the 
" miracles and wonders which are written in the 
" Gospels ; but we believe that he became partaker 
" of flesh and blood, and was tempted in all things 
" like as we are, without sin V 

The reader will observe, that this passage con- 
tains a quotation of Col. ii. 9- For in him dwelleth 
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, which words 
must convey to every unprejudiced mind a plain 
and unequivocal assertion of the divinity of Christ ; 
and I mention them for the sake of pointing out the 
Socinian tendency of that otherwise excellent work, 
the Lexicon of Schleusner. He interprets this pas- 
sage to mean, that the whole body of believers are 
collected in Christ as in their head. It is hardly 
necessary to point out the absurdity of this interpre- 
tation, which does the most forcible violence to al- 
most all the words of the sentence, giving them an 



* Tov vtov itapd ra Harp) ovra 
@eov jttev Ka) Kvpiov roov yevvvjrSv 
dirdvrcov, viro Se rov Harpoq a/KOGra- 
Xevra e£ ovpavav, Ka) o-apKcoQivra 
£vrjv8punrjKevai. Aionep Ka) to e« 
rvjq vapQevov crapa %apri(xav nzdv to 
TuXripoo^a r^q ®€orf\Toq aufAariKuq, 
T7j ®eorv)Tt drpenraq Yjvcarai Ka) re- 
QtOTzolrfcai' ov %dpiv o avToq ®eoq Ka) 
avSpanro^lYj^ovi; Xpio~roq npoe(f)VjT6V€TO 
iv v6[Aq> Ka) irpo(p^raiq Ka) iv rvj e/c/cX>j- 
cla, tS? vno tov ovpavhv itdo-rj nentcnev- 
rai Seoq /xev Kevao~aq iavrov aum rov 
tivat lua ®e&, dvOpuvoq 5e Ka) iK 



(TTtep^aroq Aafi)h to Kara, adpKa. 
Td [A€v o~Yj[/.e7a Ka) ra repara rd iv 
rolq evayyehloiq avayeypaufAtva 6 
Seoq 7jv intrehearaq' to de crapKoq Ka) 
al\A,aroc, garter yvpkvai rov ai/rov 7re- 
7!€ipay,evov Kara irdvra Ka6* ofAQio- 
rrjra, %ccp)q apapriaq. Dr. Routh 

agrees with Turrianus in read- 
ing r£ he crapKoq and -ne^eipa^kvoq ; 
but these alterations are need- 
less, if we supply <nio-revo^ev, as 
we must supply it at the begin- 
ning of this section. 



CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D. 269- 427 



highly figurative instead of a literal signification, 
extracts a sense from them which has no connexion 
with the context, and is contradicted by the author- 
ity of all the Fathers who quote the passage. The 
Improved Version translates the passage thus ; In 
him dwelleili all the fulness of the Deity bodily, 
and we find in the note this commentary of Pierce ; 
" All those blessings which proceed from the God- 
" head, and wherewith we are filled, dwell in Christ 
" truly and substantially." Mr. Belsham renders it, 
In him resideth substantially a fulness of divine 
communications ; but he has not acquainted us with 
the process by which OeoTvjs comes to signify divine 
communications. There can be little doubt that 
St. Paul had in his view the absurd notions of the 
Gnostics concerning the pier oma. In the preceding 
verse he guards his brethren against the subtleties 
of false philosophy, and he tells them, that the real 
pleroma, i. e. the full majesty of the Godhead, re- 
sided in Christ, and in him only. Pie had said the 
same in chap. i. 19- and we may observe, that the pas- 
sage was understood in no other way by Irenaeus, 
and even by the Gnostics u , and by all the Fathers 
of the three first centuries. See p. 412. 

326. Concil. Antioch. JEpist. ad JDionysium et 
Maximum. 

Another letter is also preserved by Eusebius x , 
which was written by the same council to Dionysius 
bishop of Rome, and Maximus bishop of Alexandria, 
in which the Fathers give an account of their pro- 
ceedings ; and towards the end of it there is this de- 
claration of their sentiments upon the question in 

u Iren. I. 3. 4. See Origen. x VII. 30. apud RouthReliq. 
vol. III. p. 128. IV. p. 307. Sacr. II. 477. 
Athanas. vol. I. p. 940. 



428 CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A. D. 269. 



dispute. " God, who clothed himself with and bore 
" the human nature, was neither without a parti cipa- 
" tion in those passions, which are properly and pri- 
" inarily human ; neither were the actions, which 
" are properly and primarily divine, excluded from 
" the human nature, in which he was, and which he 
" made the instrument of performing these actions. 
" Properly and primarily he was formed as man in 
" the womb ; and God was in the womb in a se- 
" condary sense, being substantially united to the hu- 
" man nature y." 

The principal difficulty in translating this passage 
is caused by the word icpoyiyovptrng, but the meaning 
of it is made plain by its being opposed to Kara, hvre- 
pov koyov : and Dr. Routh has correctly pointed out, 
that in the former part of the passage it is to be 
taken in conjunction with avQpamivwv and0e/wv, and not 
with a^eroyov and apoipov. When our Saviour felt 
hunger or sorrow, they were the feelings which be- 
longed to him properly as man : they did not be- 
long to him as God, but God felt them, because He 
had united himself to man. So also when he worked 
miracles, they were the works which properly be- 
longed to him as God: and the man Jesus worked 
miracles, because the Deity was residing in him. In 
the same manner that which was formed in the 
womb of Mary, was strictly and properly the human 
nature of Jesus. If we say that God was in the 
womb of the Virgin, we may speak correctly ; but 
we are then not speaking of God in His distinct di- 

y Ovre Se rav avBpccnlvccv nprffov- Si' ov ravra iiroiei. 'EirXaaOrj itpo- 

yukvaq itaQav a^krc/jiq rjv b (popkcraq 'qyovpkvuq icq avdpuTtoq iv yacrrp), kou 

km ivSvcrdfAevoq to avOpaiTtivov ®eoq' Kara, fievrtpov Koyov Seoq yv iv ya- 

Ok-re rSv Belav r KpQ*f\yw\A.kvuq epyav arpi <jvvQv<riuy,kvoq tb avOpoouiva, 

apoipov to avQpoonivQv, ivS vjv, km Apud Routh Reliq. Sacr. II. 485. 



CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D. 269. 429 



vine nature, but we are speaking of Him as united 
to the human nature. In this sense, but in this sense 
only, God was in the womb of the Virgin. 

We may well be surprised, as Dr. Routh observes, 
how any person could consider this passage as lower- 
ing the divinity of Christ, and containing a doctrine 
which was in unison with that of the heretic Paul. 
It asserts Jesus Christ to be God in the high- 
est sense of the term. It states him to have been 
God before his incarnation in the womb of the Vir- 
gin; and clearly distinguishes between his divine 
and human natures ; which is diametrically opposite 
to the opinion of Paul, who denied his preexistence, 
and ascribed to him only one nature, the human. 

We may add to these official accounts of the coun- 
cil's proceedings a passage from Athanasius, who, 
speaking of the Fathers assembled at Antioch, says, 
that " they used great care to confute the opinions 
" of Paul, and to prove that the Son existed before 
" all things, and that God was not born from a hu- 
" man being, but that being God he took on him the 
" form of a servant, and being the Word became 
"flesh, as St. John says z ." 

327. Symbolum Antiocheniim. 

In the Acts of the council of Ephesus, which was 
held A. D. 431. to consider the doctrines of Nestorius, 
there is a creed or exposition of faith which is said 
to be that " of the bishops assembled at Nice in the 
" council, and a declaration of the same council 
" against Paul of Samosata." There seems to be 

7 Tyv (ppovrftot e!%ov TtcLrrav, oirep ®eo$ £v ivetvaaro tovkov [A.op^>\v, kou 
inevori<7ev o 1,cc[AQa-otT€Vi; ave\elv. y kou Aoyoq uv yeyove aoip%. Ex Athanas. 

^el^ou r.p\ tvocvtuv ehai rov vlov, kou de Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. apud 
oti ovk e| avQputwv yeyove @eo^, txXha, Routh. II. 488 . 



430 CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A. D. 269. 



no doubt but that the name of Nice in this passage 
is a mistake, and that we ought to read Antioch. 
Paul of Samosata had been dead many years before 
the council of Nice, nor had that council any thing to 
do with condemning his tenets: but we are told, that 
this creed " was brought forward to convict the he- 
<c retic Nestorius of holding the same opinions with 
" Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized 160 
" years before by the orthodox bishops." From the 
year 269, when the council of Antioch was held, to 
431, when that of Ephesus assembled, the interval is 
just 162 years ; so that it seems quite certain that 
the creed, which was produced against Nestorius at 
the council of Ephesus, was that of the Fathers as- 
sembled in the year 269 at Antioch to condemn Paul 
of Samosata. The creed is as follows : 

" We acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten 

65 of the Father according to the Spirit before the 
" worlds, in the latter days born of the Virgin ac- 
" cording to the flesh, one Person compounded of 
" heavenly divinity and human flesh, and one with 
" respect to his being man a : both altogether God, 

66 and altogether man ; altogether God, even with 
" the body, but not God with respect to the body ; 
66 and altogether man with the divinity, but not man 
6i with respect to the divinity : thus altogether to be 
" worshipped even with the body, but not to be wor- 
u shipped with respect to the body ; altogether wor- 
iC shipping b even with the divinity, but not worship- 
" ping with respect to the divinity ; altogether un- 

a There seems some corrup- b i. e. Christ in his human 
tion here : it is proposed to read, nature, while he was upon earth, 
ku9o @eo$ Kai kuOo avdpamoq npoo-co- worshipped the Father. 



CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A. D. 269. 431 



" created even with the body, but not uncreated with 
f respect to the body ; altogether formed, even with 
" the divinity, but not formed with respect to the 
" divinity ; altogether of one substance with God, 
" even with the body, but not of one substance with 
" God with respect to the body ; like as he is not of 
<e one substance with men with respect to his divi- 
" nity, although even with the divinity he is of one 
" substance with us according to the flesh : for when 
" we say that he is of one substance with God ac- 
" cording to the Spirit, we do not say that he is of 
" one substance with men according to the Spirit ; 
" and again, when we preach that he is of one sub- 
" stance with men according to the flesh, we do not 
" preach that he is of one substance with God ac- 
" cording to the flesh ; for as according to the Spirit 
" he is not of one substance with us, since in this 
" respect he is of one substance with God, so neither 
" according to the flesh is he of one substance with 
" God, since in this respect he is of one substance 
" with us ; and like as these points have been distin- 
" guished and explained, not with a view to divide 
" the one Person which is indivisible, but in order 
" to shew that the properties of the flesh and the 
" Word are not confounded, we thus declare the 
" circumstances of the indivisible union c ." 



c t O[AoXoyov[Aev tov Kvpiov vj/x.Sv 
'lyaovv Xp<o"T0V, tov e/c rov Tlarpoq 
Kara. <itvev[xa npo alavav yevvvjBevra, 
eV ecryjzrw r&ov vj[f.epSv Ik itapBevov 
Kara, adpKa reyfievra, ev npocrccnov 
avvBerov e/c Beornroi; ovpavlov Kai av- 
Bpomelac, aapKoq' kou KaBo avBpuitoc,, 
ev' Kai oaov @eov, Kai oXov avBpconov' 
oaov ©eov Ka\ [/.era rov crcoy-aroq, 
a a A' ovy) KaBo aSpa @eoV koi oAov 



avBpanov [/.era ryq Otor'fjrot;, a.XX y ovy^i 
Karar\v Beorrjra avBpaxov' ovraq oXov 
irpoaKvvrjrov koi [/.era rov c-6[/.aroq y 
aXX' ovy) Kara to <ra[Ka TzpodKvvtixov' 
oAov TtpovKwovvra Ka) [/.era, rr\<; Beorrj- 
roq, aXX' ov%i Kara ttjv Beor'^ra izpoa- 
Kvvovvra' oXov ccktigtov kou yt.era rov 
au^aroq, aXX' ovyl Kara to aa^a 

UKTt(TT0V' OXOV TtXaG'TOV KOI jUCTa 

rye Beorrjroq, aXX* ovy) Kara, ryv 



482 



ARCHELAUS, A.D. 278. 



328. AftCHELAUS, A. D. 278. 

Archelaus was bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia, 
and we have still remaining a disputation which he 
held with Manes or Manichaeus d . The conference 
between these two persons took place first at Caschar, 
and afterwards at Diodoris, a village not far off. The 
date of it is supposed to be about the year 278. The 
disputation is said to have been originally written in 
Syriac ; but the account which we have of it is in 
Latin, and the translation seems to have been made, 
not from the original Syriac, but from a Greek 
version. 

I do not pretend to decide the question, whether 
the account, which we have of this dispute, is genuine 
or no. Beausobre has written at considerable length 
to prove that the conference never took place, and 
that the work in question was written A. D. 330 or 
340 e . The names of those who have adopted or 
opposed this notion, may be seen in Dr. Routh's 
Reliquiae Sacrse, vol. IV. p. 133-4. I have already 



Geor'/jra n:\aarov' o'aov o/xoovaiov @ea 
Kai perd rov aa/xarot;, oKa oi>%i 
Koccct to acofxa ot/.oovaiov ra ®ea> ' aavep 

Ov'bl Kara TYjV OeOTYjTCX, dvdpOJTTOli; £<TTIV 

ou.oovaioq^ Kalroi ye //.era t% Beo- 
rrjToc, w Kara, adpKa bpoovaiot; yfuv' 
Ka\ yap orav Aeyapev avrov Kara, 
<uvev\ka Sea o/Aaovaiov, ov Aeyopev 
Kara, irvevpa avQpaitou; oixoova iov' Kai 
Ttahiv, orav Kr\pvaaoiij-ev avrov Kara, 
crdpKa dvBp&r.oiq opoovaLOv, ov Kt\pva- 
aopev avrov Kara, adpi<a ouoovaiov 
Sea' uaitep yap Kara nvevfAa yi/Ji'v ovk 
ear iv of/.oovaiot;, eiteihrj ®eoo Ian Kara 
rovro OfAoovaioi;, ovraq ovhe Kara, adp- 
Ka ear) ®ec2 ouoovaioc, iizeih'/] rifMV 
iari Kara rovro opoovaio? wanep he 



ravra htripBparai kou aeaa^4[viarat y 
ovk elq biaipeaiv rov evoq npoaoonov 
rov doiaiperovy dW* elq ^Xecaiv rov 
davy%vrov rav ihia^drav tSJi; aapKoq 
kou rov Aoyov t ovrcc kou rd rvjq aSi- 
aiperov avvBeaeaq^pea^evo^ev . Con- 

cil. Eph. part. III. c. 6. p. 979. 
torn. III. Concil. Labb. It is 
printed also in Reiiq. Sacr. II. 
524. and in the edition of the 
works of Dionysius Alex. p. 
289. 

d See Epiphan. Haer. LXVI. 
10. vol. I. p. 627. 

e Hist, de Manichee, vol. I. 
p. 129—154. 



THEONAS, A. D. 290. 



433 



mentioned that in the course of the dispute Arche- 
laus calls the Virgin Mary the Mother of God: 
(see p. 108.) and in a fragment of another work of 
the same Archelaus, we find the following remark- 
able passage concerning the prodigies which accom- 
panied our Lord's crucifixion, " These divine won- 
" ders proclaimed with a loud voice that he was 
" God f ." It may be mentioned, that Archelaus 
quotes Luke iv. 34. " We know thee who thou art, 
" the holy Gods/' There is no other authority for 
this reading. 

329. Theonas, A. D. 290. 

Theonas was raised to the see of Alexandria in 
the year 282, and occupied it for nineteen years. 
A letter of his is extant, which he addressed to 
Lucianus, who held a high station in the household 
of the emperor Diocletian. The letter was certainly 
written in Greek ; but we have only a Latin trans- 
lation of it. Lucianus was a Christian, as were se- 
veral other persons, who held similar employments. 
Theonas in this letter gives directions to them all, 
how they should conduct themselves in their several 
situations : and addressing himself particularly to 
him, who had the care of the emperor's library, he 
says, that he should take every opportunity to bring 
the scriptures before the notice of the emperor : 
" He will sometimes speak in commendation of the 
" Gospel and of the apostle Paul : mention may be 
" made incidentally of Christ ; and he will explain 

f r£y OeovpenZv tovtuv 8av- § Scimus te qui sis sanctus 

pdruv avaKVjpvTTovrav avrov elvai Deus. Rel. Sacr. Vol. IV. p. 
@eov Xccy-Tcparri (puvy. apud Routh 257- 

Rel. Sacr. IV. p. 284. 

F f 



434 LUCIANUS, A. D. 300. 



" by degrees that he is the only God V That this 
is the true meaning of the words ejus sola divinitas, 
seems clear from a passage which Dr. Routh has 
quoted from the Roman Martyrology, (August. 31.) 
where we are told that " Aristides presented to the 
" emperor Hadrian a volume upon the Christian 
" religion, in which he explained our doctrine, and 
" proved in the clearest manner, that Christ Jesus 
" is the only God i ." The two expressions have evi- 
dently the same meaning; and since Theonas un- 
questionably believed in God the Father, he must 
have considered Jesus Christ to be one with the Fa- 
ther, or he could not have styled him the only God k . 
He wrote to turn the emperor from polytheism to 
the worship of the one true God, and he expressly 
says that the only God is Christ. We may also 
compare this expression with the quotation from 
Tertullian at the end of N°. 98. p. 183. 

330. Lucianus, A. D. 300. 

Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian 1 , as well as 
Athanasius m and Hilary 11 , have preserved a creed or 
exposition of faith, which was brought forward at the 
sixth council of Antioch, held in the year 341 : and 
Sozomen 0 informs us, that it was said to be found 



h — — insurgere poterit Chri- 
sti mentio, explicabitur paulatim 
ejus sola divinitas. Epist. ad 
Lucianum, apud Routh. Rel. 
Sacr. III. p. 31 1. 

1 et quod Christus Jesus 

solus esset Deus, praesente ipso 
imperatore luculentissime per- 
oravit. Rel. Sacr. I. p. 78. 

k In the same way A than a- 
sius uses the very strong expres- 



sion, povoq he 0 XjJicTTo? iv av8pa- 
Tioiq iyvapitrQ?] &eo<; aktfiivac, ®eoy 
@eo? Aoyoq. De Incarn. 47. vol. 
I. p. 88. This treatise was writ- 
ten before the Arian controversy 
arose. 

1 II. TO. 

m De Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. 
§. 23. vol. I. p. 735. 

n De Synod. §. 28. p. 1168. 
0 HI- 5- 



LUC IAN US, A. D. 300. 



435 



in the hand-writing of Lucianus. He was a presby- 
ter of the church of Antioch, celebrated for his know- 
ledge of the scriptures, and suffered martyrdom at 
Nicomedia about the year 311, in the persecution of 
Maximinus p. 

Dr. Routh <i does not venture to admit this creed 
as a genuine composition of Lucianus, though Baro- 
nius, Cave, Basnage, and Bull have maintained its 
authenticity. A question of this nature can never 
be decided so as to exclude further doubt or contro- 
versy : and without entering more into the dispute, 
I shall only mention, that if the creed was a forgery, 
the Arians were the authors of it. 

It is unquestionable, that the council held at 
Antioch in 341 was composed mostly of persons in- 
clined to Arianism. They first drew up a short con- 
fession of faith, which differed considerably from that 
of the council of Nice, and did not give satisfaction. 
They then put forth another, which they asserted to 
have been found in the hand-writing of Lucianus. 
It is also true, that Sozomen (who is the only writer 
that mentions the latter circumstance) says, that he 
did not know whether it was genuine or no. But 
one argument used by bishop Bull r is surely suffi- 
cient to incline us to receive the creed. If it was 
forged by the Arians under the name of Lucianus, 
is it probable that they would have drawn up a con- 
fession of faith, which entirely contradicted their 
own doctrines? The bishop contends that this is 
the fact : and whether it is so or no, the reader may 
judge for himself. If we are to decide, that it was 

p See the Synopsis Scripture i Rel. Sacr. III. p. 295. 
ascribed to Atbanasius, vol. II. r Defens. Sect. II. 13. 4. &c. 
p. 204, 

F f 2 



436 



LUCIANUS, A. D. 300. 



not composed by Lucianus at the end of the third 
century, we must then take it as containing the 
doctrines of the Arians in the year 341 : and it is at 
least satisfactory to see that the Arians at that pe- 
riod differed in so small a degree from the catholic 
church. 

" We believe according to the evangelical and 
" apostolical tradition in one God, Father Almighty, 
" the Creator and Maker of all things : and in one 
u Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, God, 
" by whom all things were made ; who was begot- 
" ten of the Father before all worlds, God of God s , 
ct universal of universal, alone of alone, perfect of 
" perfect t 9 King of King, Lord of Lord, the living 
" Word, Wisdom, Life, true Light, the Way of 
" Truth, the Resurrection, Shepherd, Door ; un- 
<c changeable and unalterable ; the unvarying image 
" of the Divinity, Substance and Power and Counsel 
" and Glory of the Father : begotten before every 
" creature ; who was at the beginning with God, the 
" Word, God, according to what is said in the Gos- 
" pel, And the Word was God, by whom all things 
" were made, and in whom all things subsist ; who 
" in the latter days came down from above, and was 
<c * born of a Virgin according to the scriptures ; and 
" was made man, a Mediator between God and men, 
" the Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as he 
" says, I came down from heaven, not that I might 
66 do my own will 9 but the will of Him that sent 
" me : who suffered for us, and rose again for us on 

s ®eoj/ e/c @€o3. Hippolytus by Clement of Alexandria, 

had used the same expression, ow o[Ao\oyq<rov<rw aKOvreq rov Aoyov 
@eoq vnapxav e/c Seov. II. p. 29. TeXetov e/c re'Aetov tpvvra rov Yla- 
t TeXeiov e/c reXeiov, which ex- rpoq;' Pffid. I. 6. p. 1 1 3. 

pression was applied to the Son 



LUCIANUS, A. D. 300. 



437 



the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat 
down on the right hand of the Father, and cometh 
again with glory and power to judge quick and 
dead. And in the Holy Ghost, which was given 
for consolation and satisfaction, and for the per- 
fecting of them that believe : as also our Lord 
Jesus Christ charged his disciples, saying, Go ye 9 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost, evidently of the Father who is truly Fa- 
ther, and of the Son who is truly Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, who is truly Holy Ghost ; the names 
not being merely given, or without reality, but 
signifying strictly the proper person and glory and 
office of each of those who are named; so that 
they are three in person, but one in agreement u ." 



u TiiCTevofxev aKoXovBcoq t9J ev- 
ayyeAiKYj Kou'AiroaToXiKTj napocboaei, 
elq eva ®eov Hocrepa, itavTOKpaTopa, 

TOV TWV bXtoV %YILUGVpy6v T6 KOU TtOlY}- 

Trjv kcu elq eva Kvpiov'l'^crovv XptcTov, 
tov viov avTov tov [xovoyevrj, ©eov, Si' 
ov rcc irdvTa iyevezo' tov yewnBevTa 
npo TtuvTcev tZv alavav e/c tov TtaTpoq, 
%eov Ik &eov, oXov e| oXov, povov e/c 
/aovov, TeXeiov e/c TeXeiov, {Hao-iXea 
Ik (3ao-iXeuq, Kvpiov dno Kvpiov' 
Aoyov p>T«, ?,oipiav, ^wr t v, cf)Sq dX'/j- 
Bivov, odov dXyBelaq, dvd<TTao~tv, 7roi- 
[xeva, Bvpav, arpercTov re koi dvaX- 
XoIcotov' Trjv T~f\q BeoTrfcoq, ovalaq re 
kou tvvdpeuq kou (3ovXyjq kou Sof'/js 
tov Ylarpoq dizctpdXXaKTOv cIkovcc' 

TOV TtpUTOTGKOV Trdo~Tjq KTiOTeCOq' TOV 

ovtcl iv apyjfi irpbq tov ®eov y Aoyov 
®eov, KCiTcc to elpr^evov iv tS evccy- 
yeXla, Kou ®eoq yv o Aoyoq, 8»' oi Ta 
irdvTa eyeveTO, kou iv a tcc nocvTa 
avveo-T'SjKe' tov eV iayjxTw tccv vjfte- 
pav KccTekBovToc avcoBev, Ka\ yevvv\- 
BevTa in TtapBevov koltcc Tccq ypacpdq, 



kou dvBpanov yevopevov, [A€o-Ittjv Qeov 
kcu dvBpanav, ' AtzogtoXov t€ rfq tt/- 
tneuq y][A,Sv kou dpxyyov Tyjq "^covjq, 
aq (p'qaiv' oti KCrta.(3e(3vjKoc e/c tov ov- 
pavov, ofy iva itoia to BeXrjfxa. to 
iyJov, dXXcc to BeXvj/Aa. tov ize^avToq 
jU.e' tov TtaBovToc vnep '/jjxcov kou dva- 

<JTUVTCt VTiep Y)[/.UV TYj TplTT} 7jU.€pqi, 9 

kou dveXBovTa elq ovpavovq, kou KaBe- 
o-BevTCt ivdeiia tov YlaTpoq, kou r nd- 
Xiv ip^o'^evov jxerd ho^q kou dvvdueaq 
Kpivou X^avToxq kou veKpovq' kou elq to 
IIvevfAGt to ctyiov, to elq TCocpaKXyaiv 
kou dyiao-[M>vKou elq TeXeicco-iv To7q m- 
Q-Tevovo-t fiidofxevov, KaBolq kou 6 Kv- 
pioq 7j[xav 'lyo-ovq ~Kpio-Toq tieTd%aT0 
To7q ^cxBffccuq^ Xeyav, HopevBevTeq 
k. t. X. SyXov oti UocTpoq o\Xf\Bivuq 
ovTGq TiciTpoq, kou vlov aXvjBivuq vtov 
ovToq, kou HvevpotToq olylov dXyBivZq 
ovToq Hvev^aToqdylov' tcov ho^aTuv 
ov% ditXSjq ov$e dpyaq Ketpevav, dXXd 
crrj[AouvovTcov aKpifiaq Tqv Itiav e.Ka- 

q-tov tZv 0V0[Aa^0[AeVC0V V%00-TUQ~lv T€ 

kou hofcav kou tu^v, ojq elvou Trj (Aev 
F f 3 



/ 

f 

438 METHODIUS, A. D. 305. 

The last clause of this creed furnishes an argu- 
ment for its authenticity, which is not noticed by 
bishop Bull, but which perhaps carries some weight. 
The word liroa-radig is here taken in the sense of per- 
son, which is known to be the meaning given to the 
term in the time of Lucianus x : but it afterwards 
came to signify the same as ova-fa, substance : and it 
is used in this sense in two other creeds which were 
drawn up at this same council of Antioch v. 

Methodius, A. D. 305. 

The only work of this Father, from which I shall 
give any extracts, is the Banquet of ten Virgins, 
or the book concerning Chastity, We know that 
he left other writings, of which a few fragments 
remain ; and there are some entire pieces ascribed 
to him, which many persons have received as ge- 
nuine : but the evidence against their authenticity 
seems decisive. Photius also informs us z , that the 
Banquet of ten Virgins had been interpolated by 
the Arians : we may therefore safely appeal to it 
notwithstanding this objection : for the Arians would 
not be likely to have inserted any thing which con- 
firmed the proofs of Christ's divinity. 

Methodius is supposed to have been bishop of 
Olympus in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre,, and to 
have suffered martyrdom at Chalcis in the year 311 
or 312. We learn from Epiphanius a , that he was 
also called Eubulius. 

vno<TT&<T£i rpia, T7j Se <rv[/.(pa)v{g, ev. C. Cels. VIII. 12. p. 75 

The last words of this creed x See page 341, &c. 

closely resemble the expression y See Athanasius de Synodis 

of Origen, that the Father and §. 24, 25. vol. I. p. 737-8. 

the Son are §vo ttj vitoaTaa-ei, ev z Cod. 237. 

$e t5j 6[aovoic(, kcu T7) <rvu<pav!p. a Hser. LXI V.63 . vol. I . p.5 90. 



METHODIUS, A. D. 305. 439 



The Banquet of ten Vwgins is a curious and 
entertaining work : and the plan of it can hardly 
fail to remind the reader of the Decamerone of Boc- 
caccio. In both works ten speakers are introduced, 
each of whom successively takes the turn of dis- 
coursing to the rest. The characters introduced by 
Methodius are all females, and evidently allegorical. 
Ten of them meet in the garden of Arete (Virtue) 
the daughter of Philosophy, and after amusing 
themselves in gathering flowers and admiring the 
beauty of the place, which is described as a se- 
cond Paradise, Arete persuades them to sit down, 
and each to deliver a discourse in praise of Virginity. 
The proposal is accepted; and the ladies entertain 
each other with expatiating upon this topic. Their 
speeches only take up one day ; and it could be 
wished, that between this work and the Decamerone 
there had also been the distinction of greater pro- 
priety and decency in some of the expressions. The 
description of the garden of Arete at the beginning 
of the book, its flowers and fruits, the fertilizing 
brooks and incense-breathing air, will often call to 
mind the beautiful though florid expressions of Boc- 
caccio. We are at present concerned with a graver 
subject; and the work will supply some unequivocal 
attestations to the doctrine of Christ's divinity. 
331. Methodii Symposion. p. 69, 70. 

It is here observed, that our Saviour, much more 
than the prophets and just men of old, declared the 
excellence of virginity, for that before his time man 
had never arrived at perfection : " To accomplish 
" which, the Word was sent into the world, and first 
" assumed our form, which was spotted with many 
" sins, that we in turn, for whose sake he bore it, 

E f 4 



440 METHODIUS, A. D. 305. 



" might be able to contain the divine form for 

" he chose to clothe himself with human flesh, when 
" he was God, for this reason, that seeing the divine 
" original of life as in a picture, we might also be 
" able to imitate him who painted it b ." I cannot 
help observing the extreme unfairness, not to say 
dishonesty, of Beausobre, who, because he found 
some Arianisms in Methodius, says of him, " that he 
" had no idea of the hypostatic union of the Word 
" with the human nature c ." The first quotation, 
which I have given, seems purposely designed to re- 
fute this assertion. We here find Methodius saying, 
that the Word, being God, assumed human flesh : 
and nearly all the following quotations contain the 
same doctrine. 

332. Methodii Symposion. p. 79. 

" for Christ was this, a man filled with un- 

" mixed and perfect divinity, and God contained in 
" man d ." 

333. Methodii Symposion. p. 80. 

" For this reason the Lord says that he came into 
" life from heaven, having left the companies and 
" hosts of angels e ." 

334. Methodii Symposion. p. 105. 
Having spoken of the corruption of mankind after 



b "Oirep reXeo-iovpyycrai Kara- 
7t€[/.<p6ii^ o Koyoq elc, rov Kocry.ov r\v 
^[/.erepav [/.optpyv irporepov ave\a[3e 
noXXoTq d^apr^aa-i Kareo-riy[Aevvjv, 
't'va §7j rvjv Oelav ^/xei's, ov$ avroq 
i(popeo-e, ttaXiv yjupri<rai ^vv^6a[xev 
>ravrr) yap -^perlcraro tvjv av- 
QpuTtivr\v ivcjvo-acrdai o~dpt<a Seoq oov, 
%iccc$ ooanzep iv mivaKi 6e7ov eKrvnupa 
(3tov ^Xeitovreq, e^cc^ev koX v)[Ae7<; 70V 
ypdipavra [Ai^eTaOai. 

c Methodius n'avoit aucune 



idee de l'Union hypostatique du 
Verbe avec la Nature Humaine. 
Hist, de Manichee, vol. I. p. 
u8. 

d — rovro yap elvai rov Xpi- 

arov, avQpocnov dnpara Qeorvjn Kai 
re\ela nenXypcofAtvov, koi &eov iv av- 
Opconcp Keyjiop-fi^ivov . 

e Aia rovro (ftvjaiv o Kvptoi;, eav 
rov e!<; rov filov e/c rav ovpavuv iKy- 
AvOevai, KarakeXomora raq rd^en; 
<a\ ra arparoTt&a rav ayyeKccv. 



METHODIUS, A. D. 305. 441 



the flood, the speaker observes, that " God, lest man- 
" kind should be altogether destroyed by forgetting 
" what was right, commanded His own Son to com- 
" municate to the prophets his advent into the 
" world, which was to be by the flesh f ." 

335. Methodii Symposion. p. 105. 

" In another way one might say that the bride 
" was the unpolluted flesh of the Lord, for sake of 
" which he left the Father and came hither, and 
" was united to it by taking the human nature s." 

336. Methodii Symposion . p . 1 1 1 . 

The passage in the book of Revelations, xii. 5. is 
here said not to allude to the birth of Christ, but to 
the admission of believers into the church : " For 
" the mystery of the incarnation of the Word was 
" fulfilled long ago before the Revelation : but John 
" speaks of things present and to come : whereas 
" Christ, who was conceived long ago, was not 
" caught up, as soon as he was born, to the throne 
" of God, through fear of the Serpent hurting him : 
f* but he was born and came down from his Father's 
" throne for this very reason, that he might conquer 
" the dragon, waiting for his attacking him in the 
« flesh h ." 



f c O ovv @eoq, tva j/?/] itdvr^ to 
ylvoq rav dvBpdcitav d'ia-rccBrj X'fjBrj rav 
KaXav, rov i hiov nai^ct roTq itpo^raiq 
eKeXevaev int'/jxyjcrcu ryv iaof^evvjv eav- 
rov nzocpovalav did crapKoq €tq rov 
filov. 

% Avv'rj<rera.i 8e riq erepcoq tvjv 
vv[/.(l)rjv (pdvai rrjv crdpKot, r\v dpo- 
Xvvrov rov Kvpiov, r\q %doiv rov Yla- 
ripa, KaraXeixpaq KocryjXBev kvravBot. 

KCCl r Kp0<TZK0XX'f\B'f\ KCtl ey/carec/c^ey 

iva,v6pan^<raq elq avr't\v. 



[l TldXai yap icpo rr\q 'AnoKaXv- 
ipeaq iwcirX'/jpuro {Avcrrripiov rqq Ivav- 
Bpomyjo-ecoq rov Aoyov. 'O Se 'Iw- 
dvvrjq itepi itapovTav Kai [AeXXovrav 
BiCTf/jOobei' 6 §e Xptcrroq i:dXai KvyBeiq 
ov^ 'f\pTcdcrB'/i, onore ire^Brj, npoq rov 
Bpovov rov @€ov, (po(3a rov fAVj XvpA-> 
vcccrBai avrbv rov o<piv' dXXd hid, 
rovro ly€vvf\B'q koi KocryXBev avroq 
diro ruv Bpovccv rov Uarpbq, fva rov 
dpdaovra ^eipaa^rai, fxtivccq ewiTpe- 
ypvra. ttj crapKt. 



442 



ARNOBIUS, A. D. 306. 



337. Methodii Symposion. p. 112. 

The following remark is made upon the words 
spoken by God at our Saviour's baptism. " Thou 
66 art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten 
" thee 1 . We must observe, that He declares him to 
" be His Son indefinitely and without reference to 
" time. For He says to him, Thou art, not Thou 
Ci hast become : shewing that he had neither been 
" recently adopted as a Son, nor yet was he one, who 
" having previously existed afterwards had an end, 
" but having been begotten before, both would be 
" and was the same. But the words, This day have 
" / begotten thee, mean, You already preexisted be- 
" fore the worlds in heaven, and I wished also to 
" beget you to the world ; which means, to make 
" known that which was unknown before k ." 

Another quotation from Methodius has already 
been given at p. 137. 

Arnobius, A. D. 306. 
Arnobius was certainly educated in heathenism 
and taught rhetoric at Sicca in Africa. The work 
which he has left, consisting of seven books against 
the Gentiles is said by some to have been written 
while he was only a catechumen ; but Lardner 
doubts this. There are also disputes as to the time 
in which he flourished. Tillemont and Beausobre 
place him as early as the year 297, but I have adopted 

1 See p. 149. N°. 76. re ao$ lo-y^Kevai, aXKa itpoyevv^Bivra 

k Tlaparvjpyjreov yap, on to yXv Ka\ e<recrQai kou elvai tov avrov' to 

vtov avrov elvai aoplcnai; aize^varo he, 'Eya a'^epov yeyevvrjKa are, on 

Ka) ccftpovvq. Ei yap avra e<prj, Ka\ npoovra tjStj itpo rav alavuv ev To7q 

ov, Teyovaq' e^cpaivav p/jre irpoo-cpa- ovpavo7q, i(3ovAvj6'/)v koi tS Koa-fAW, 

tov avrov rervyjivai vloQea-'iac,' yevvvjaai, o hy eanv upoaBev ayvoov- 

pjTe av icpovTcap^avra pera ravra y.evov yvaplcrai. 



ARNOBIUS, A.D.306. 



the later date, which is that assigned to him by 
Lardner. His work against the Gentiles is a most 
forcible exposure of the follies and inconsistencies of 
paganism, and is full of very curious and interesting 
information. From the nature of the work we should 
not expect much illustration of the doctrines of 
Christianity ; but there are nevertheless a few pas- 
sages which seem to shew very plainly, that in those 
days it was the universal belief, that Jesus Christ 
was God. 

338. Arnobii adversus Gentes lib. I. p. 19? 20. 

We may learn what the belief and practice of 
Christians were at the beginning of the fourth cen- 
tury, by observing what were the objections brought 
against their doctrine by their enemies. Accordingly 
we find in Arnobius, that the heathens said, " The 
" gods are not angry with you for worshipping God 
" Almighty ; but because you contend, that a man, 
" who was born, and (which is disgraceful to low 
" persons) put to death by crucifixion, was God, and 
" believe that he is still alive, and worship him with 
64 daily supplications 1 ." 

It follows from this passage, that the heathens 
must have known that Christ was worshipped by the 
Christians as God : it must have been well under- 
stood in those days, that Christ was not considered 
to be a mere man ; and we may observe that the 
word here translated worship is stronger when ap- 
plied to Christ, than when applied to God Almighty: 

1 Sed non, inquit, idcirco dii cis supplicio interemptum, et 
vobis infesti sunt, quod omni- Deum fuisse contenditis, et su- 
potentem colatis Deum ; sed peresse adhuc creditis, et quo- 
quod hominem natum, et quod tidianis supplication ibus adora- 
personis infame est vilibus cm- tis. 



444 



ARNOBIUS, A.D. 306. 



in the latter case it is colatis, in the former ad- 
oratis : so that we cannot doubt but that religious 
worship was paid to Christ ; and yet the object of 
Arnobius throughout this work, as of all the apolo- 
gists for Christianity, was to shew, that the Chris- 
tians worshipped only one God. 

339. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 24. 
But we may hear Arnobius himself explaining in 

what sense he called Christ God. He shews in the 
first place, that even if Christ had been born like or- 
dinary men, still he deserved to be worshipped as 

God. " Even if that were true still in return 

" for so many and bountiful gifts, which we have 
" obtained from him, he would deserve to be called 
" and entitled God. But when he is really God, 
66 and without the uncertainty of any doubtful mat- 
" ter, do you think we can deny that he is worship- 
" ped in the highest degree by us, and called the 
"Guardian of our society? What! some one will 
" say in a violent passion, is that Christ God ? Yes, 
" we answer, God, and God in the highest sense m ." 

340. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 25. 
He then goes on to shew that Christ did not work 

his miracles by magic. " But it is plain that Christ 
" did all his works by the power of his own name 
" without any assistance, without observing any rite 
" or any law, and what was peculiar, fitting and 

m Natum hominem colitis, ros arbitramini nos esse, quam 

Etiam si esset id verum, tamen maxime ilium a nobis coli, et 

pro multis et tarn liberalibus Prsesidem nostri corporis nun- 

donis, quae ab eo profecta in cupari ? Ergone, inquiet aliquis 

nobis sunt, Deus dici appella- furens, iratus, et percitus, Deus 

rique deberet. Cum vero Deus ille est Christus ? Deus, respon- 

sit re certa, et sine ullius rei debimus, et interiorum poten- 

dubitationis ambiguo, inficiatu- tiarum Deus. 



ARNOBIUS, A. D. 306. 



445 



* worthy of the true God, he gave nothing injurious 

* or detrimental, but beneficial, salutary, and full of 
" useful blessings, by the bounty of his mhnificent 
" power. What do you say then ? Was he then 
" mortal, or one of us, before whose power and be- 
" fore whose voice, uttered in usual and ordinary 
(i words, diseases, fevers, and other bodily torments, 
" fled ? Was he one of us, whose presence and sight 
u that race of daemons buried deep in the body 
u could not endure, and, frightened by the new 
" power, retired from possession of the limbs n ? " 

341. Arnohii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 28. 
In the same manner he goes through nearly all 
the miracles of Jesus, prefacing each by saying, 
" Was he one of us ?" Uuns fuit e nobis f and con- 
cludes thus ; " It is clearer than the sun itself, that 
" he was more powerful than the fates, when he 
" unloosed and conquered what had been bound by 
" perpetual chains and unalterable necessity °." We 
must remember what ideas the heathens entertained 
of the fates, who were considered to be more power- 
ful even than the gods themselves p ; and when we 



n Atqui constitit Christum 
sine ullis adminiculis rerum, 
sine ullius ritus observatione, 
Vel lege, omnia ilia quae fecit no- 
minis sui possibilitate fecisse : et 
quod proprium, consentaneum, 
dignum Deo fuerat vero, nihil 
nocens, aut noxium, sed opife- 
rura, sed salutare, sed auxilia- 
ribus plenum bonis potestatis 
munificae liberalitate donasse. 
Quid dicitis, O iterum ? Ergo 
ille mortalis, aut unus fuit e no- 
bis, cujus imperium, cujus vo- 
cem popularibus et quotidianis 



verbis missam, valetudines, mor- 
bi, febres, atque alia corporum 
cruciamenta fugiebant } Unus 
fuit e nobis, cujus praesentiam, 
cujus visum gens ilia nequibat 
ferre mersorum in visceribus dse- 
monum, conterritaque vi nova 
membrorum possessione cede- 
bat? 

0 Sole ipso est clarius, poten- 
tiorem ilium fuisse quam fata 
sunt, cum ea solvit et vicit, quae 
perpetuis nexibus et immobili 
fuerant necessitate devincta. 

p Thus Lactantius, speaking 



446 



ARNOBIUS, A. D. 306. 



find a Christian writer telling his adversaries that 
Christ was superior to the fates, we shall see at 
once, that it could never have been believed that 
Christ was a mere man, but that he must have been 
considered as God. 

342. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 31. 

" Was it therefore human, or out of a mouth 
" nourished with earthly food could such power be 
" given, such authority proceed, and was it not di- 
" vine, was it not holy ? or, if the thing admits of 
" any excess, something more than divine and more 
" than holy^?" 

343. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. 1, p. 32. 

" There was nothing magical, as you suppose, 
" nothing human, juggling, or illusive, no deceit lay 
" hid in Christ, although you deride us according to 
ee custom, and break out into indecent laughter. He 
" was the sublime Cod, God of the highest origin ; 
" God was sent as a Saviour from unknown regions, 
" and from God the Sovereign of all, &c r ." 

344. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. 1, p. 37. 

" But they say, if Christ was God, why did he 
" appear in the form of a man? and why was he put 
" to death after the manner of man ? Could that in- 
" visible power, which has no bodily substance, in- 



of the fates, says, Tanta vis est, 
ut plus possint quam caelestes 
universi, quamque ipse Rector ac 
Dominus. Instit. I. n, p. 45. 

<i Ergo illud human urn fuit, 
aut ex ore terrenis stercoribus 
innutrito tale potuit jus dari, ta- 
lis licentia proficisci, et non di- 
vinum et sacrum ? aut si aliquam 
superlationem res capit, plus- 
quam divinum et sacrum ? 



r Nihil, ut remini, magicum, 
nihil humanum, prasstigiosum 
aut subdolum, nihil fraudis de- 
lituit in Christo, derideatis licet 
ex more atque in lasciviam dis- 
solvamini cachinnorum. Deus 
ille sublimis fuit, Deus radice 
ab intima, Deus ab incognitis 
regnis, et ab omnium Principe 
Deus sospitator est missus. 



ARNOBIUS, A. D. 306. 447 

" troduce and adapt itself to the world, be present 
" at the councils of mortals, in any other way than 
" by assuming some covering of more substantial 
" matter, which might be seen by the eyes, and 
" on which the gaze of the dullest sight might fix 
" itself? For what mortal is there, who could see 
" him, or discern him, if he had wished to introduce 
" himself on earth such as is his original nature, and 
" such as he thinks fit to be in his own proper qua- 
" lity or divinity ? He therefore assumed the form 
" of man, and confined his own power under the 
" likeness of mankind, that he might be seen and 
" beheld, that he might speak and teach, and per- 
" form all those things, to do which he came into 
" the world, observing the command and disposition 

" of the Sovereign King But he was put to 

" death, you say, after the manner of men. Not he 
" himself; for death cannot happen to what is di- 
" vine ; nor can that which is one and simple, and 
" not formed by the union of any parts, fall away 
" by mortal dissolution. Who then was it, that was 
" seen to hang upon the cross ? who was it that 
" died ? The human nature, which he had assumed, 
<c and which he bore together with his own s ." 

s Sed si Deus, inquiunt, fuit est enim mortalium, qui quiret 

Christus, cur forma est in homi- eum videre, quis cernere, si ta- 

nis visus ? et cur more est inter- lem voluisset inferre se terris, 

emptus humano ? An aliter po- qualis ei primigenia natura est, 

tuit invisibilis ilia vis et habens et qualem se ipse in sua esse 

nullam substantiam corporalem, voluit vel qualitate vel numine ? 

inferre et commodare se mundo, Assumpsit igitur hominis for- 

conciliis interesse mortalium, mam, et sub nostri generis si- 

quam ut aliquod tegmen mate- militudine potentiam suam clau- 

rise solidioris assumeret, quod sit, ut et videri posset et con- 

oculorum susciperet injectum, et spici, verba faceret et doceret, 

ubi se figere inertissimae posset atque omnes exequeretur res 

contemplationis obtutus? Quis eas, propter quas in mundum 



448 PETRUS ALEX ANDRINUS, A. D. 306. 



345. Arnobii adversus Gentes I. II. p. 85. 
" And therefore Christ, who, although you do not 
" wish to hear it, is God, Christ, I say, who is God, 
" (for this must often be repeated, that the ears of 
" unbelievers may be opened,) speaking by the com- 
" mand of the Sovereign God under the form of man 
" hath taught us V' &c. &c. 

Pethus Alexandrinus, A. D. 306. 

Peter succeeded Theonas in the see of Alexandria 
about the year 300. The persecution of Diocletian 
was felt severely in his days ; and after retiring for 
a time to escape the fury of it, he at length suffered 
martyrdom u in the year 310. We have accounts of 
several works written by this Father, but only a few 
fragments remain, from which the following extracts 
are taken ; and it will perhaps be thought that they 
confirm what Ephrem patriarch of Antioch said of 
Peter, " that he held the union of two natures in the 
" one person of Christ x ." 

I have already observed at p. 83. that this writer, 
speaking of the offerings of the Magi, says, that they 



venerat faciendas, summi regis 
imperio et dispositione servatis. 

Sed more est hominis in- 

teremptus. Non ipse: neque 
enim cadere divinas in res pot- 
est mortis occasus j nec interi- 
tionis dissolutione dilabi id, 
quod est unum et simplex, nec 
ullarum partium congregatione 
compactum. Quis est ergo vi- 
sus in patibulo pendere, quis 
mortuus est? homo, quern in- 
duerat, et secum ipse portabat. 

1 Et ideo Christus licet vo- 
bis invitis Deus, Deus inquam 
Christus, hoc enim ssepe dicen- 



dum est, ut infidelium dissiliat 
et dirumpatur auditus, Dei Prin- 
cipis jussione loquens sub homi- 
nis forma prsecepit &c. 

u Athanas. Apol. c. Arian.59. 
vol. I. p. 177. Vita Antonii, 
47. p. 832. Epiphanius, Haer. 
LXVIII. 3. vol. I. p. 719. 

x c/ Ot< 8e bvo (pv&eav evaaiv kou 
l^iccv vnocrrao-w kou icpia-ccnov %v opo- 
XoyeTv, tqv opOov (ppov^AoiToq icrTiv, 
kou raf nctTepav K'rjpvypa, '\coavvriq 

f/.ev 6 Xpvo 6<rro[/.o<; [/.ccprvpei — 

aXXcc kou Ylerpoi; 6 'AX^ocv^peiaq kou 

pocprvi;. Phot. Cod. 229. 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



449 



* presented gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to 
" a king and God and man :" and another fragment 
has been quoted at p. 130. 
346. Petri Alex, ex Libro de Divinitate. (Rel. 
Sacr. vol. III. p. 345.) 
Speaking of the angel's salutation to Mary he says, 
" We may now understand those words of Gabriel, 
" The Lord be with thee, to mean, God the Word be 
" with thee ; for they signify that he was conceived 
" in the womb, and became flesh Y" 
347. Petri Alex, ex Horn, de Adventu Salvatoris. 
(Rel. Sacr. vol. III. p. 346.) 
" He says to Judas, ~Betrayest thou the Son of 
" man with a kiss ? (Luke xxii. 48.) This and si- 
" milar passages, and all the miracles which he did, 
" and his powerful works, prove him to be God who 
" became man : both together therefore prove that 
" by nature he was God, and by nature was made 
" man 7 ." 

Lactantius, A. D. 310. 
It has been said that the name of this writer was 
Lucius Coelius, or Coecilius, Firmianus Lactantius. 
By birth he was probably an African, and he was a 
scholar of Arnobius : but whether he was converted 
to Christianity from heathenism, has been disputed. 
Lardner thinks that he was from the first a Christian. 
Diocletian sent for him to Nicomedia, where he 



Y To yap, 0 Kvpioq jxera, aov, vvv 
laTiv ccKOvaai tqv Ta^plvjX, avii tqv, 
0 ®eoq Koyoq pera aov' a^jxaivei yap 
avrov yevvay.evov iv y^rpa koi adpKa 
yevopevov. 

z Kat Ta 'IouSa <prja), $t\'qy.ot.Ti 
rov ViQV tqv avOpumov ira-pahi^ccq ; rav- 



ra, Ta re rovroiq opoia, to. re arj- 
y,e7a navTa a ino'iyae, koi at lUvvdr 
f^eii; deiKVvaiv avrov ®eov thai ivav- 
GpGCTrqaavTa' to, avva^cporepa rolvvv 
heiKvvrai, on ®eoq r\v cj>vaei, Ka\ yi-> 
yovev Stv8pooTro$ (pvaei. 



450 LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



taught rhetoric for some years, and was in that city 
during the persecution which Diocletian raised against 
the Christians. He is supposed to have left Nico- 
media about the year 314, and to have gone into 
Gaul, where he held the situation of preceptor to 
Crispus the eldest son of Constantine. Some writers 
have said that he lived in extreme poverty : but 
Lardner seems not without reason to doubt the truth 
of this statement. He died at an advanced age. 

Lactantius wrote several works ; but the following 
are all which have come down to us, and they were 
written in the order here observed. — Symposium (if 
genuine) : of the Workmanship of God : Divine In- 
stitutions, and the Epitome of them : of the Wrath 
of God : of the Deaths of Persecutors : but there are 
doubts whether this last treatise was written by Lac- 
tantius. 

Of these works the Divine Institutions in seven 
t books are the longest and most important. They 

seem to have been written at different times. They 
are dedicated to Constantine, but there is consider- 
able internal evidence of parts of them having been 
composed before that emperor's accession. Lardner 
thinks that the design of them was formed as early 
as the year 303. 

It was my intention at first to have brought the 
testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to a close, 
without taking any thing from the works of Lactan- 
tius ; and I should have excluded him, not because 
he lived to witness the commencement of the Arian 
heresy, but because there is so little of Christianity 
in his works ; and because we find, as might be ex- 
pected, that he was but slightly acquainted with the 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



451 



doctrinal parts of our religion. The following pas- 
sage taken from the Defence of the Nicene Faith a , 
will shew what were the sentiments of bishop Bull 
upon this subject, and what was the impression 
upon his mind after reading the works of this 
writer. " Lactantius is the only Father who remains 
" to be consulted upon this question ; and since his 
" opinion is not to be held of much weight, as I have 
" elsewhere observed, I may speak of him a little 
" more at length. He was a rhetorician, not a 
" theologian ; nor did he ever hold a place among 
" the doctors of the church. Beside which, if we 
" may judge from his writings, such as have come 
" down to our times, he was extremely ignorant of 
" the scriptures and of the doctrine of the church. 
" Whence not only upon this question, but also in 
" other most important matters of our religion, he 
" fell into most grievous and absurd errors, such as 
" would hardly be pardoned in a catechumen. It 
" is not to be wondered at therefore, if he mistook 
" the metaphorical generation of the Son, by which 
" he proceeded from the Father, and was as it were 
" born for the purpose of creating this universe, (of 
" which indeed he had read something in Christian 
" writers,) for his real production and generation b ." 

The bishop then goes on to point out instances, 
where the MSS. of Lactantius differ exceedingly 
from one another, so that some of the strange senti- 
ments ascribed to this writer may reasonably be con- 
sidered as spurious ; and he also shews, that some 

a III. io. 20. Pope Dama- tantius, because they were too 

sus, in a letter to Jerom, de- prolix, and not godly enough, 
clared that he could not en- b See what Waterland says 

dure to read the works of Lac- of Lactantius, IV. p. 1 1 1, &c. 

Gg2 



452 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



passages of his works are evidently infected with the 
absurd errors of the Manichees. 

These reasons, as observed above, inclined me at 
first to take no notice of the writings of Lactantius. 
But since there are some expressions in his works, 
which may be construed without unfairness into an 
acknowledgment of the Son of God not having 
existed always, it might be said perhaps, that if 
Lactantius was excluded from the list of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, the omission was made from a con- 
sciousness that his evidence was against us. 

I shall therefore begin my quotations from Lac- 
tantius, with producing those passages which seem 
to contradict the catholic doctrine of the eternal ex- 
istence of the Son. I shall make no comment upon 
them separately, nor endeavour to give to them an- 
other and more orthodox interpretation : but having 
laid these passages before the reader, I shall then se- 
lect other expressions which seem to shew that Lac- 
tantius did believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ in 
the fullest and highest sense of the term. The reader 
will then judge for himself, whether the doctrines, 
which are contained in these two different series of 
quotations, can be reconciled with each other. If 
they can, we must conclude that some of his expres- 
sions are to be taken in a sense different from that 
which appears to be plain and obvious : if they can- 
not, we must say with bishop Bull, that Lactantius 
was no divine, and knew little or nothing of the doc- 
trinal parts of our religion. 

The following passages might be quoted as proving 
that Lactantius did not believe in the eternal gene- 
ration of Jesus Christ. 

" Since God had perfect providence in counsel, and 



LACTANTIUS A. D. 310. 453 

" perfect wisdom in action, before he began upon this 
" work of the world, (because the source of full and 
" complete good resided in Him as it always does,) 
" that good might rise out of Him, like a stream, 
" and flow in a long course, He produced a Spirit 
" like to Himself, which was to be endued with the 

" power of God His Father God therefore, when 

" He began to frame the world, appointed this His 
" first and highest Son over the whole work, and at 
" the same time employed him both as an adviser 
" and a creator in devising, arranging, and com- 
" pleting all things, since he is perfect in providence 
" and reason and power 0 ." 

" God therefore, the contriver and appointer of all 
66 things, before He began upon this beautiful fabric 
" of the world, begat an holy and incorruptible 
" Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although 
" He afterwards created other innumerable spirits 
" by him, whom we call angels, yet He thought him 
" alone, who was the first -begotten, worthy of re- 
" ceiving the divine name, inasmuch as he possessed 
" his Father's power and majesty d ." The same 

c Cum esset Deus ad excogi- quoniam is et providentia, et 

tandum providentissimus, ad fa- ration e, et potestate perfectus 

ciendura solertissimus, ante- est. Instit. II. 9. vol. I. p. 143. 

quam ordiretur hoc opus mundi, d Deus igitur machinator 

(quoniam pleni et consummati constitutorque rerum, antequam 

boni fons in ipso erat, sicut est praeclarum hoc opus mundi ado- 

semper,) ut ab eo bonum tan- riretur, sanctum et incorrupti- 

quam rivus oriretur, longeque bilem Spiritum genuit, quern 

proflueret, produxit similem sui Filium nuncuparet; et quamvis 

Spiritum, qui esset virtutibus alios postea innumerabiles per 

Dei Patris prseditus. Exor- ipsum creavisset, quos angelos 

sus igitur Deus fabricam mundi dicimus, hunc tamen solum pri- 

illum primum et maximum Fi- mogenitum divini nominis ap- 

lium praefecit operi universo ; pellatione dignatus est, patria 

eoque simul et consiliatore usus scilicet virtute ac majestate 

est et artifice in excogitandis, pollentem. Instit. IV. 6. p. 

ornandis, perficiendisque rebus, 284. 

Gg3 



454 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



sentiment is thus expressed in the Epitome of the In- 
stitutions: " God in the beginning, before He created 
" the world, begat unto Himself from the fountain 
" of His own eternity, and from His own divine and 
" everlasting Spirit, a Son who was incorruptible, 
" faithful, corresponding to the power and majesty 
" of his Father. This is the Power, the Reason, the 

" Word, and Wisdom of God. Of all the angels 

" whom the same God formed out of His spirits, he 
" alone was taken into a partnership of supreme 
" power, he alone was called God. For all thing's 
" were made by him, and without him nothing e ." 

" Perhaps some one may ask, who is this that is 
66 so powerful, so dear to God, and what name does 
" he bear, whose first birth not only preceded the 
" world, but he even arranged it by his wisdom, and 
" formed it by his power. In the first place we are 
" to know, that his name is understood not even by 
" the angels who abide in heaven, but by himself 
" alone and God the Father f ." 

The following attempt at explaining the mode of 
the generation of the Son, if it has any intelligible 
meaning, may be thought to be not in accordance 



e Deus in principio ante- 
quam mundum institueret, de 
seternitatis suae fonte, deque di- 
vino ac perenni Spiritu suo Fili- 
ura sibi ipse progenuit, incor- 
ruptum, fidelem, virtuti ac raa- 
jestati patriae respondentem. 
Hie est virtus, hie ratio, hie 

sermo Dei, hie sapientia.- 

Denique ex omnibus angelis, 
quos idem Deus de suis spiriti- 
bus figuravit, solus in consortium 
summae potestatis adscitus est, 
solus Deus nuncupatus. Om- 
nia enim per ipsum et sine ipso 



nihil. Epit. Instit. XLII. vol. 
II. p. 30. 

f Fortasse quserat aiiquis hoc 
loco, quis sit iste tarn potens, 
tarn Deo carus, et quod nomen 
habeat, cujus prima nativitas 
non modo antecesserit mun- 
dum, verum etiam prudentia 
disposuerit, virtute construxerit. 
Primum scire nos convenit, no- 
men ejus ne angelis quidem no- 
tum esse, qui morantur in caslo, 
sed ipsi soli ac Deo Patri. Instit. 
IV. 7. vol. I. p. 286. 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



455 



with the catholic doctrines. " How then did He 
" beget him ? In the first place the divine works can 
" neither be known nor declared by any one : but 
" yet the scriptures teach, that this Son of God is 
(i the Word or Reason of God ; and also that the 
" other angels are spirits of God. For a word is 
" spirit (or breath) put forth with a significant sound. 
" And yet since the breath and a word are put forth 
" from different parts, (for the breath proceeds from 
" the nostrils, a word from the mouth,) there is a 
" great difference between this Son of God and other 
" angels. For they went forth from God as silent spi- 
" rits, because they were created not to deliver the 
" doctrine of God, but to minister to Him. But the 
" Son, although he is himself a spirit, yet proceeded 
" from the mouth of God with a voice and sound, like 
" a word, I mean in the same manner that he would 
" use his voice [when speaking] to the people, i. e. 
" that he was to become the teacher of the doctrine 
" of God and of the heavenly secret which was to be 
" declared to men ; which very word God spoke at 
" the beginning, that He might speak to us by him, 
" and he might reveal to us the voice and will of 
" God. He is therefore properly called the Word of 
" God ; because God, by a certain inconceivable power 
" of His majesty, comprehended that vocal spirit 
" which proceeds out of his mouth, which He had 
" conceived, not in the womb, but in the mind, into a 
" form which had its own proper sense and wisdom ; 
" and He also fashioned His other spirits into an- 

" gels. Our words, although they are blended 

" with the air and vanish, yet generally remain being 
" comprehended in letters : how much more must 
" we believe that the voice of God continues for ever, 

G g 4 



456 



LAC TAN T I U S, A.D. 310. 



$ and is accompanied with sense and power, which 
" he derived from God the Father like a river from 
" its source. But if any one wonder that God 
t£ should be begotten of God by a putting forth of 
" the voice and breath, he will cease to wonder, if 
" he knows the sacred sayings of the prophets." He 
then quotes Psalm xxxiii. 6. xlv. 1. Ecclus. xxiv. 3- 
John i. 1—3 s. 

" But in what manner and with what commands 
" he was sent by God upon earth, the Spirit of God 
" declared by the prophets, teaching that it would 
" come to pass, that when he had faithfully and con- 
" stantly fulfilled the will of the supreme Father, he 



8 Quomodo igitur procre- 
avit? Primum nec sciri a quo- 
quam possunt nec enarrari opera 
divina : sed tamen sanctae literse 
docent, in quibus cautum est, 
ilium Dei Filium Dei esse ser- 
monem, sive etiam rationem j 
iteraque casteros angelos Dei 
spiritus esse. Nam sermo est 
spiritus cum voce aliquid signi- 
ficante prolatus. Sed tamen 
quoniam spiritus et sermo di- 
versis parti bus proferuntur, (si- 
quidem spiritus naribus, ore 
sermo procedit,) magna inter 
hunc Dei Filium et caeteros an- 
gelos differentia est. Illi enim 
ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt ; 
quia non ad doctrinam Dei tra- 
dendam sed ad ministerium cre- 
abantur. Ille vero cum sit et 
ipse Spiritus, tamen cum voce 
ac sono ex Dei ore processit, 
sicut verbum, ea scilicet ratione, 
quia voce ejus ad populum fue- 
rat usurus ; id est, quod ille 
magister futurus esset doctrinae 
Dei et coelestis arcani ad homi- 
nem proferendi ; quod ipsum 



primo locutus est, ut per eum 
ad nos loqueretur, et ille vocem 
Dei ac voluntatem nobis reve- 
laret. Merito igitur Sermo et 
Verbum Dei dicitur ; quia Deus 
procedentem de ore suo vocalem 
Spiritum, quern non utero sed 
mente conceperat, inexcogitabili 
quadam majestatis sua? virtute 
ac potentia in effigiem, qua? 
proprio sensu ac sapientia vi- 
geat, comprehendit, et alios 
item spiritus suos in angelos fi- 

guravit. Nostra? voces, licet 

auras misceantur atque evane- 
scant, tamen plerumque perma- 
nent Uteris comprehensae : quan- 
to magisDei Vocem credendum 
est et manere in seternum et 
sensu ac virtute comitari, quam 
de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de 
fonte traduxerit. Quod si quis 
miratur ex Deo Deum prola- 
tione vocis ac spiritus potuisse 
generari, si sacras voces Pro- 
phetarum cognoverit, desinet 
profecto mirari. Jnstit. IV. 8. 
p. 289. 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 457 



" should receive everlasting judgment and dominion. 

" But he exhibited his fidelity to God. For he 

" taught that there is one God,, and that He alone 
" ought to be worshipped ; nor did he ever call him- 
" self God, because he could not have preserved his 
" fidelity, if, when he was sent to take away the 
" other gods and to preach only one, he had men- 
" tioned another beside that one. This would have 
" been, not to preach one God, nor Him who sent 
" him, but to do his own business, and to separate 
" himself from Him, whom he came to reveal. 
66 Therefore because he was thus faithful, because 
" he assumed nothing whatever to himself, that he 
" might fulfil the commands of Him who sent him, 
" he received the dignity of an everlasting Priest, 
" the honour of supreme King, the power of a Judge, 
" and the name of God h ." 

These are the passages which might be quoted as 
lowering the divinity of the Son, and as shewing 
that Lactantius did not believe him to have been 
begotten from all eternity, and to be coeternal with 
the Father. I shall now produce other passages 
where Lactantius speaks of Christ as God without 



h Quomodo autem et cum 
quibus mandatis a Deo mittere- 
tur in terram, declaravit Spiri- 
tus Dei per prophetam, docens 
futurum, ut cum voluntatem 
summi Patris fideliter et con- 
stanter implesset, acciperet ju- 
dicium atque imperium sempi- 

ternum. Ille vero exhibuit 

Deo fidem. Docuit enim quod 
unus Deus sit, eumque solum 
coli oportere ; nec unquam se 
ipse Deum dixit, quia non ser- 
vasset fidem, si missus ut deos 
tolleret et unum assereret, in- 



duceret alium prseter unum. 
Hoc erat non de uno Deo fa- 
cere praeconium, nec ejus qui 
miserat, sed suum proprium ne- 
gotium gerere, ac se ab eo, quern 
illustraturus venerat, separare. 
Propterea quia tam fidelis exti- 
tit, quia sibi nihil prorsus as- 
sumpsit, ut mandata mittentis 
impleret, et Sacerdotis perpetui 
dignitatem, et Regis summi ho- 
norem, et Judicis potestatem, et 
Dei nomen accepit. Instit. IV. 
14. p. 309. 



458 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



any reserve or limitation, and where he seems to 
consider him as united in the Godhead with the 
Father. 

348. Lactantii Instit. 1. II. c. 17- vol. I. p. 180. 

" God neither requires any name, since He is 
<c alone ; nor do the angels, because they are immor- 
" tal, either suffer or wish themselves to be called 
" gods, it being their sole and single duty to serve 
" at the beck of God, nor to do any thing at all 

" without His command. But He, the Governor 

" of the world, and Director of the universe 

" alone possesses power over all things together with 
" His Son V 

349. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 10. p. 292. 

Having mentioned it as the fixed determination 
of God, ce that the Son of God should descend upon 
" earth to form a temple to God, and to teach 
" righteousness, but not in the character of an angel, 
" or in celestial power, but in the figure of a man 
" and in a human nature," he says, that he will 
prove all the circumstances in Christ's life and suf- 
ferings to have been predicted by the prophets : 
" And when I shall have proved all these things by 
" the writings of those very persons, who killed 
" their God when in a mortal body, what will pre- 
" vent the conclusion, that true wisdom is to be 
" found in this religion only k ?" 

i Nam Deus neque nomine, solus habet rerum omnium cum 

cum solus sit, egetj neque an- Filio potestatem. 
geli, cum sint immortales, dici k In primis scire homines 

se deos aut patiuntur aut vo- oportet, sic a principio proces- 

lunt ; quorum unum solumque sisse dispositionem summi Dei, 

officium est servire nutibus Dei, ut esset necesse, appropinquante 

nec omnino quidquam nisi jus- sseculi termino, Dei Filium de- 

su facere. — — Ille autem Praeses scendere in terram, ut consti- 

muudi, et Rector universi tueret Deo templum doceret- 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



459 



350. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 11. p. 297. 

" He commanded His first-begotten Son, the 
" Creator of all things, and His adviser, to descend 
" from heaven, to teach the Gentiles V &c. 

351. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 12. p. 299. 
This and a few following passages prove that Lac- 
tan ti us fully believed in the miraculous conception 
of Jesus. " That holy Spirit of God descended 
" from heaven, and chose the blessed Virgin, into 
" whose womb he might infuse himself. But she 
" being filled by the influence of the divine Spirit 
" conceived m ," &c. 

352. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 25. p. 339. 

" That it might be certain he was sent from God, 
" it was necessary for him to be born, not as a man 
" is born, who is formed on each side from a mortal 
" parent; but that it might appear in his human 
" nature that he was from heaven, he was created 
" without the cooperation of a father. For he had 
" God as his spiritual Father ; and as God was the 
" Father of his spirit [his divine nature], without a 
" mother, so the mother of his body [his human 
" nature] was a virgin without a father n ." 



que justitiam : verumtamen non 
in virtute angeli, aut potestate 
coelesti, sed in figura hominis 

et conditione mortali Quae 

omnia cum probavero eorum ip- 
sorum literis, qui Deum suum 
mortali corpore utentem viola- 
verunt, quid aliud obstabit &c. ? 

1 Sed ilium Filium suum pri- 
mogenitum, ilium opificem re- 
rum, et consiliatorem suum de- 
labi jussit e coelo, ut religionem 
&c. &c. 

m Descendens itaque de coelo 



sanctus ille Spiritus Dei sanctam 
Virginem, cujus utero se insi- 
nuaret, elegit. At ilia divino 
Spiritu hausto repleta concepit, 
et sine ullo attactu viri repente 
virginalis uterus intumuit. 

n Sed tamen ut certum esset 
a Deo missum, non ita ilium 
nasci oportuit, sicuthomo nasci- 
tur ex mortali utroque concre- 
tus : sed ut appareret etiam in 
homine ilium esse ccelestem, 
creatus est sine opera genitoris. 
Habebat enim spiritalem Pa- 



460 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



353. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 12. p. 300. 
Having quoted some prophecies which spoke of 

the miraculous conception, he observes, " The pro- 
" phet has declared by this name (Emmanuel), that 
" God was to come to men in the flesh. For Em- 
" manuel signifies God with us : which means, that 
" when he was born of a virgin, men were to con- 
" fess that he was God with them, i. e. on earth and 
" in mortal flesh. Whence David in the 84th Psalm 
" (lxxxv. 11.) says, Truth hath sprung out of the 
" earth, because God, in whom is Truth, took an 
" earthly body, that he might open the way of sal- 
" vation to those who were earthly °." 

354. Lactantii Instit 1. IV. c. 13. p. 303. 

" In his first spiritual birth he was without a 
" mother, because he was begotten of God the Father 
" alone without the aid of a mother. But in the 
" second carnal birth he was without a father, since 
" he was begotten in the womb of a virgin without 
" the aid of a father ; that, bearing a middle sub- 
" stance between God and man, he might lead this 
" our frail and weak nature to immortality. He 
" was made the Son of God by the Spirit, and Son of 
" man by the flesh, i. e. both God and man. The 
" power of God appeared in him by the works which 
" he did, the weakness of man by the suffering 
" which he underwent. — — That he was God and 

trem Deum ; et sicut Pater Spi- virginem nato confiteri homines 

ritus ejus Deus sine matre, ita oportebat Deum secum esse, id 

mater corporis ejus virgo sine est, in terra, et in carne mortali. 

patre. Unde David in Psalmo lxxxiv. 

° Propheta declaravit hoc no- Veritas, inquit, de terra orta est ; 

mine, quod Deus ad homines quia Deus, in quo Veritas est, 

in carne venturus esset. He- terrenum corpus accepit, ut ter- 

manuel enim significat Nobis- renis viam saiutis aperiret. 
cum Deus; scilicet quia illo per 



L AC TAN T I U S, A. D. 310. 



461 



" man, made up of each nature, we learn by the pre- 
" dictions of the prophets p." 

We find the same doctrine thus expressed in the 
Epitome (c. 43. p. 32.) " The Almighty Father com- 
" manded him to come down to earth, and put on a 
" human body— — he was therefore born again as a 
" man of a virgin without a father : that like as in 
" his first spiritual birth he was created and made a 
" holy Spirit of God alone, so in his second carnal 
" birth being born of his mother only he might be- 
" come holy flesh, that by him the flesh which had 
" been subject to sin might be freed from death. 

" He was with us on earth, when he put on 

" flesh, and nevertheless he was God in man, and 
66 man in God : but that he was both, was declared 
" before by the prophets V 

355. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 14. p. 308. 

" Who then would not think that the Jews were 
" deprived of their understandings, who, when they 



p In prima enim nativitate 
spiritali apyrup fuit, quia sine 
officio matris a solo Deo Patre 
generatus est. In secunda vero 
carnali a,%arap fuit, quoniam sine 
patris officio virginali utero pro- 
creatus est, ut mediam inter 
Deum et hominem substantiam 
gerens nostram hanc fragilem 
imbecillemque naturam quasi 
manu ad immortalitatem posset 
educere. Factus est et Dei Fi- 
lius per Spiritum, et hominis 
per carnem ; id est, et Deus et 
homo. Dei virtus in eo ex ope- 
ribus quae fecit apparuit, fragi- 
litas hominis ex passione quam 

pertulit Et Deum fuisse et 

hominem ex utroque genere 
permistum, prophetis vaticinan- 



tibus discimus. 

y Jussit igitur eum sumrnus 
Pater descendere in terram et 

humanum corpus induere 

renatus est ergo ex virgine sine 
patre, tan quam homo ; ut quem- 
admodum in prima nativitate 
spiritali creatus, et ex solo Deo 
sanctus Spiritus factus est, sic 
in secunda carnali ex sola ma- 
tre genitus caro sancta fieret, ut 
per eum caro, quse subjecta pec- 
cato fuerat, ab interitu libera- 
retur — —Fuit nobiscum in ter- 
ra, cum induit carnem ; et ni- 
hilominus Deus fuit in homine 
et homo in Deo. Utrumque 
autem fuisse a prophetis ante 
prsedictum est. 



462 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



" read and heard these things, laid wicked hands 
" upon their God r ?" 

356. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 18. p. 320. 

" They met together that they might condemn 
" their God s ." 

357. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 18. p. 322. 

" What shall we say of the indignity of this cross, 
" on which God was suspended and fastened hy the 
" worshippers of God 1 ?" It seems very improbable 
that in so short a sentence the word God should have 
two different meanings, which it must have, unless 
we suppose the same God who was worshipped by 
the Jews to have been nailed to the cross. 

358. Lactantii Instit 1. IV. c. 18. p. 324. 

" But that it should come to pass, that the Jews 
" would lay hands upon their God and put him to 
" death, the following testimonies of the prophets 
" have shewn u ." 

359. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 22. p. 333. 
Speaking of unbelievers, he says, " They deny 

" that it could come to pass, that an immortal na- 
" ture should lose any thing. They deny it being 
u worthy of God, that he should wish to become 
" man, and to burden himself with the infirmity of 
" the flesh x ." 



r Quis non igitur captos men- 
tibus turn fuisse Judaeos arbi- 
tretur, qui cum haec legerent et 
audirent, nefandas manus Deo 
suo intulerunt ? 

s Coierunt, ut Deum suum 
condemnarent. 

1 Quid de hujus crucis in- 
dignitate dicemus, in qua Deus 
a cultoribus Dei suspensus est 
atque suffixus ? 



11 Fore autem ut Judaei ma- 
nus inferrent Deo suo, eumque 
interficerent, testimonia pro- 
phetarum haec antecesserunt. 

x Negant fieri potuisse, ut 
naturae immortali quidquam de- 
cederet. Negant denique Deo 
dignum, ut homo fieri vellet, 
seque infirmitate carnis onera- 
ret. The same observation is 
made in theEpitome, c. 50. p. 37. 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



463 



360. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 24. p. 338. 

He argues, that God could not have taught men 
how to lead a good life, unless he had shewn, by his 
own example, that the human nature is capable of 
leading such a life ; and he says that he has shewn, 
" that neither could man have his doctrine perfect, 
" unless he was also God, that he might lay the 
" necessity of obedience upon men by authority from 
" heaven ; nor could God, unless he was clothed in a 
" mortal body, that by fulfilling his own precepts by 
" actions, he might bind others in the necessity of 
" obedience y." 

361. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 25. p. 339- 

" Therefore he came as a Mediator, i. e. God in 
" the flesh, that the flesh might follow him, and that 
" he might rescue man from death z ." 

362. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 26. p. 343. 

" But the following is the reason, why the supreme 
" Father chose particularly that kind of death, with 
" which he permitted him to be visited. For perhaps 
" a person may say, If he was God, and wished to 
" die, why did he not suffer some honourable kind of 
" death ?" He then gives some reasons why the 
death of the cross was chosen, and adds, " This also 
66 was a principal cause, why God preferred the cross, 
" because by that he would be exalted, and the 
" sufferings of God would be made known to all 
" nations a ." 

y neque hominem per- plendo, caeteros parendi neces- 

fecta doctrina esse posse, nisi sitate constringat. 

sit idem Deus, ut auctoritate 2 Itaque idcirco Mediator ad- 

coslesti necessitatem parendi ho- venit, id est Deus in carne, ut 

minibus imponat; neque Deum, caro eum sequi posset et eripe- 

nisi mortali corpore induatur, ret morti hominem. 

ut praecepta sua factis adim- a Cur autem summus Pater 



464 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



363. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 29. p. 350. 
" Perhaps some one may ask, how, when we say 
" that we worship one God, we yet assert that there 
" are two Gods, God the Father and God the Son : 
" which assertion has driven many into the greatest 
" error : w ho, although what we say seems to be 
" probable, yet think that we fail in this one point, 
" that we acknowledge a second and a mortal God. 
" Concerning his mortality we have already spoken : 
" let us now explain his unity. When we speak of 
" God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak 
" of a different God, nor do we separate both ; be- 
" cause neither can the Father be without the Son, 
" nor the Son be separated from the Father ; since 
" indeed neither can the Father have His name 
" without a Son, nor can the Son be begotten with- 
" out a Father. Since therefore the Father makes 
" the Son, and the Son the Father, both have one 
" mind, one Spirit, one substance : but the one is as 
" it were an overflowing fountain, the other like a 
66 stream flowing from it : the one is as the sun, the 
" other as a ray proceeding from the sun ; who, be- 
" cause he is both faithful and dear to the supreme 
" Father, is not separated from Him, as neither is a 
" stream from its fountain, nor a ray from the sun, 
" because the water of the fountain is in the stream, 
" and the light of the sun is in the ray. In the 
<c same manner neither can the voice be separated 
" from the mouth, nor the power or the hand from 

id potissimum genus mortis ele- Ilia quoque praecipua fait 

gerit, quo affici eum sineret, base causa, cur Deus crucem malu- 

ratio est. Dicet enim fortasse erit, quod ilia exaltari eum fuit 

aliquis, Cur si Deus fuit et mori necesse, et omnibus gentibus 

voluit, non saltern honesto ali- passionem Dei notescere. 
quo mortis genere affectus est? 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 465 



" the body. Since therefore he is called by the pro- 
" phets the Hand and Power and Word of God, it 
" follows that there is no distinction, because the 
" tongue, the minister of the word, and the hand, 
" in which is the power, are inseparable parts of the 

" body. This world is one house of God : and 

" the Son and the Father, who together inhabit the 
" earth, are one God, because one is as two, and two 
" as one. Nor is that to be wondered at, because 
" the Son is in the Father, (for the Father loveth 
" the Son ;) and the Father is in the Son, because 
" he faithfully obeys his Father's will, nor ever does 
" or would do any thing, except what his Father 

" wills or commands. Wherefore since the mind 

" and will of one is in the other, or rather there is 
" one in both, both are properly called one God ; 
" because whatever is in the Father passes to the 
66 Son, and whatever is in the Son descends from the 
" Father. The supreme and only God therefore 
(( cannot be worshipped except through the Son. 
66 He who thinks that he worships the Father only, 
" as he does not worship the Son, also does not wor- 
" ship the Father. But he who receives the Son, 
(( and bears his name, together with the Son wor- 
" ships the Father also ; since the Son is the Am- 
" bassador, and Messenger, and Spirit of the supreme 
" Father \" 

b Fortasse quaerat aliquis, bitrantur, quod et altemm et 
quomodo, cum Deum nos unum mortalem Deum fateamur. De 
colere dicamus, duos tamen esse mortalitate jam diximus ; nunc 
asseveremus, Deum Patrem et de unitate doceamus. Cum di- 
Deum Filium ; quae asseveratio cimus Deum Patrem et Deum 
plerosque in maximum impegit Filium, non diversum dicimus, 
errorem. Quibus cum proba- nec utrumque secernimus ; quia 
bilia videantur esse, quae dici- nec Pater sine Filio esse potest, 
in us, in hoc uno labare nos ar- nec Filius a Patre secerni, si 

H h 



466 LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



The corresponding passage in the Epitome is this. 
" Nor yet is this to be taken, as if there are two 
a Gods. For the Father and the Son are one. For 
" since the Father loves the Son, and gives all things 
" to him, and the Son faithfully obeys the Father, 
" nor wishes any thing except what the Father 
" wishes, such a close connexion cannot be sepa- 
" rated, so as that they can be called two in whom 
" both substance and will and faith are one. There- 
:t fore the Son is by the Father, and the Father by 
(i the Son ; one honour is to be given to each as to 
" one God, and is to be so divided by two worships, 
" that the very division is connected by an insepara- 
" ble union. He will leave himself neither one nor 



quidem nec Pater sine Filio 
nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine 
Patre generari. Cum igitur et 
Pater Filium faciat, et Filius 
Patrem, una utrique mens, unus 
spiritus, una substantia est : sed 
ille quasi exuberans fons est, hie 
tanquam defluens ex eo rivus ; 
ille tanquam sol, hie quasi ra- 
dius a sole porrectus : qui quo- 
niam summo Patri et fidelis et 
carus est, non separatur ; sicut 
nec rivus a fonte, nec radius a 
sole ; quia et aqua fontis in rivo 
est, et solis lumen in radio : 
eeque nec vox ab ore sejungi, 
nec virtus aut manus a corpore 
divelli potest. Cum igitur a 
prophetis idem manus Dei et 
virtus et sermo dicatur, utique 
nulla discretio est ; quia et lin- 
gua sermonis ministra, et ma- 
nus, in qua est virtus, individual 

sunt corporis portiones. Sic 

hie mundus una Dei domus est; 
et Filius ac Pater, qui unanimes 
incolunt mundum, Deus unus, 



quia et unus est tanquam duo, 
et duo tanquam unus. Neque 
id mirum, cum et Filius sit in 
Patre, quia Pater diligit Filium, 
et Pater in Filio, quia voluntati 
Patris fideliter paret, nec un- 
quam faciat aut fecerit, nisi 
quod Pater aut voluit aut jussit. 

Quapropter cum mens et 

voluntas alterius in altero sit, 
vel potius una in utroque, merito 
unus Deus uterque appellatur, 
quia quidquid est in Patre ad 
Filium transfluit, et quidquid in 
Filio a Patre descendit. Non 
potest igitur ille summus, ac 
singularis Deus nisi per Filium 
coli. Qui solum Patrem se co- 
lere putat, sicut Filium non 
colit, ita ne Patrem quidem. 
Qui autem Filium suscipit et 
nomen ejus gerit, is vero cum 
Filio simul et Patrem colit, 
quoniam legatus et nuntius et 
sacerdos sum mi Patris est Fi- 
lius. 



LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



467 



" the other, who separates either the Father from 
" the Son, or the Son from the Father c ." 

364. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. ult. p. 353. 
The following passage concerning heretics is of 
importance, as shewing the belief of Lactantius him- 
self : " Some who are not sufficiently instructed in 
t£ sacred literature, when they cannot reply to the 
" enemies of truth, who object that it is either im- 
" possible or unbecoming that God should be con- 
" fined in the womb of a woman, and that that 
" heavenly majesty cannot be lowered to such weak- 
" ness, as to be the contempt and scorn of men, and 
" at last even to suffer tortures and be nailed to an 

" accursed cross, all which things, when they 

" could not defend or refute by ingenuity or learn- 
" ing, they have departed from the right path, and 
" corrupted the scriptures, that they might compose 
" a new doctrine for themselves without any root 
" and stability." He then names the Phrygians, 
Novatians, Valentinians, and Marcionites, &c. <c or 

66 whatever other name they bear, they have 

66 ceased to be Christians ; who, losing the name of 
66 Christ, have assumed human and foreign titles. It 
" is the catholic church alone which retains the true 
" worship ri ". 



c Nec tamen sic habendum 
est, tanquam duo sint Dii. Pa- 
ter enim ac Filius unum sunt. 
Cum enim Pater Filium diligat, 
omniaque ei tribuat, et Filius 
Patri ndeliter obsequatur, nec 
velit quidquam, nisi quod Pater, 
non potest utique necessitudo 
tanta divelli, ut duo esse dican- 
tur, in quibus et substantia et 
voluntas et fides una est. Ergo 
et Filius per Patrem, et Pater 



per Filium. Unus est honos 
utrique tribuendus, tanquam uni 
Deo, et ita dividendus est per 
duos cultus, ut divisio ipsa corn- 
page inseparabilivinciatur. Neu- 
trum sibi relinquet, qui aut Pa- 
trem a Filio, aut Filium aPatre 
secernit. c. 49. p. 37. 

d Quidam vero non satis 
coelestibus literis eruditi, cum 
veritatis accusatoribus respon- 
dere non possent objicientibus 

H h % 



468 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



365. Lactantii Instit. 1. V. c. 3. p. 369. 

Having spoken of Apollonius of Tyanea, and ex- 
posed his false pretensions to divinity, he adds, " But 
" ours was able to be believed to be a God, since he 
" was not a conjurer ; and he was believed to be so, 
" because he was really God e ." 

If we compare the words of Lactantius in this 
place with those of Eusebius in his work against 
Hierocles, it is plain, that Lactantius was arguing 
against this same Hierocles, who wrote a book called 
Philalethes, the object of which was to compare 
Apollonius Tyaneus with Jesus Christ. Hierocles 
lived at the beginning of the fourth century, and 
was a violent opponent of Christianity : and from an 
extract, which Eusebius makes from his work, we 
may perceive that the fact of Jesus being looked 
upon as God by the Christians was well known to 
Hierocles. After having specified many miracles 
worked by Apollonius, he says, " I have mentioned 
" these, that a comparison may be drawn between 
(i the accurate and safe judgment passed by us in 



vel impossible vel incongruens 
esse ut Deus in uterum mulie- 
ris includeretur, nec coelestem 
illam majestatem ad tan tarn in- 
firmitatem potuisse deduci, ut 
hominibus contemptui, derisui, 
contumelies et ludibrio esset, 
postremo etiam cruciamenta 
perferret, atque execrabili pati- 
bulo figeretur ; quae omnia cum 
neque ingenio neque doctrina 
defendere ac refutare possent, 
depravati sunt ab itinere recto 
et coeiestes literas corruperunt, 
ut novam sibi doctrinam sine 
ulla radice ac stabilitate com- 
ponerent.- Cum enim Phry- 



ges, aut Novatiani, aut Valen- 
tiniani, aut Marcionitse, aut An- 
thropiani, aut Ariani, seu quili- 
bet alii nominantur, Christiani 
esse desierunt, qui Christi no- 
mine amisso humana et externa 
vocabula induerunt. Sola igi- 
tur catholica ecclesia est, quae 
verum cultum retinet. I have 
taken no notice of the word 
Ariani in my translation of this 
passage, because it is wanting 
in the oldest MSS. 

e Noster vero et potuit Deus 
credi, quia magus non fuit ; et 
creditus est, quia vere fuit. 



LACTANTIUS, A. D. 310. 



469 



<c each case, and the silliness of the Christians. For 
" we do not consider the worker of these miracles to 
" have been God, but a man highly favoured by the 
ee gods : whereas the Christians on account of a few 
" miracles call Jesus God f ." Such is the testi- 
mony of an heathen, 

The reader is now enabled to draw his own in- 
ference concerning the doctrines of Lactantius ; and 
perhaps we must conclude that there are some ex- 
pressions in the preceding quotations, which it is 
impossible to reconcile with each other. Thus much 
however seems certain, concerning the belief of this 
writer. He believed that Christ was present with 
God, and assisted Him in the creation of the world ; 
that he was not born of Joseph and Mary, but that 
he was conceived miraculously by Mary who was 
a virgin ; that he was of one substance with God ; 
and that no persons worship God the Father, unless 
they worship inclusively God the Son. 

We may think that Lactantius was heterodox, or 
that he did not understand his own opinions con- 
cerning the generation of the Son, but still his words 
are plain and positive concerning the articles of be- 
lief just mentioned ; and any one of these is funda- 
mentally subversive of the notion of Lactantius be- 
ing an Unitarian. His assertion, which is twice 
repeated, that Christ is of one substance with the 
Father, would also seem to separate him decidedly 
from the Arian tenets. Some of his expressions 
might possibly be brought within the verge of Se mi- 
aria nism ; but we must remember, that the illustra- 

f . . . . eWep .wev tgv ol Se 8; oX/ya^ zeparda,^ Tt>a<; tw 

ToiaijTa, TtenoirjKOTa,, ov 6ew, aXXcc '\-/\<tqvv ®eov avayopevov&i. Euseb. 
6eo7<; K€%api<T[jt.evGV avtpoc, yyovueSa.' C. Hierocl. p. 5 T2 « 

H h 3 



470 LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310. 



tion which he uses of the sun and the ray is also 
used by Origen (N°. 262.) and Dionysius of Alexan- 
dria, (N°. 302, 303.) as proving that there never was 
a time when the Son did not exist. Lactantius cer- 
tainly speaks sometimes as if he believed the Son to 
have been begotten at some definite period of time : 
and bishop Bull, as we have seen, conceives him to 
have spoken of that figurative generation of the Son, 
when he went forth from the Father to create the 
world. There is no doubt that some of the Fathers 
mention more than one generation of the Son, and 
that they considered this which immediately pre- 
ceded the creation to have been one of them : but 
if Lactantius thought that the Son proceeded from 
the Father, as a ray from the sun, he could hardly 
have conceived that they were not always coex- 
istent. 



CONCLUSION. 



WE have now brought the testimonies of the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers to a close. The catholic church 
has always appealed to these testimonies, as support- 
ing the doctrine of the eternal and consubstantial 
divinity of Jesus Christ. The Unitarians appeal to 
the same authority in proof of what they call the 
simple humanity of Christ. The reader will draw 
his own inference, as to which of these two opposite 
doctrines is most supported by the writings of the 
three first centuries. 

We must remember also, that when the Fathers, 
who were assembled at Nice in the year 325, ap- 
pealed to their predecessors as maintaining the same 
doctrine, which was professed at that council, they 
had many more documents before them than what 
we now possess. The works of the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, which remain to us, are perhaps not a 
hundredth part of those, which were extant at the 
beginning of the fourth century a : and yet with this 
multitude of evidence before them, which was open 
to their opponents as well as to themselves, they did 
not hesitate to declare, that all the Fathers who 
had preceded them, believed in the divinity of Christ. 
Where were the Unitarian teachers when this con- 

a The author of the Synopsis Xov9lav koI crvucpavitzv dXkd fAvpla 

Scriptures, ascribed to Athana- koI dvapiO^ra. filfiXta, i^eTroy/jOrjcrav 

sius, after enumerating the books vvo rZv Kara. Koupav$ [AeydXav kou 

of the New Testament, observes o-txpeordrav Oeocpopuv itccrepcov. vol. 

that verepov kcctoc rrjv iK€ivuv dm- II. p. 1 3 1 • 

H h 4 



CONCLUSION. 



fident assertion was made? If the writers of the 
three first centuries believed, as we are repeatedly 
told, in the simple humanity of Jesus, why was not 
a whisper of this belief heard at the council of Nice? 
There is not the smallest particle of evidence to 
shew, that the Unitarian or Socinian doctrines were 
so much as thought of at that council. It is true 
indeed, that those who were inclined to Arianism 
appealed to the early Fathers in support of their 
opinions, and we will consider the justice of this 
appeal presently. But the reader must remember, 
that an Arian of the fourth century would have been 
little less shocked than the most orthodox catholic, 
at hearing it asserted, that Jesus Christ had always 
been believed to be a mere man. I repeat therefore, 
that the total absence of all mention of Unitarianism 
at the council of Nice is a very strong argument 
against the notion, that the early Fathers were Uni- 
tarians. We might believe perhaps, though the 
i hypothesis is highly improbable, that the bishops 

assembled at that council all agreed in drawing up a 
profession of faith, which they knew to be funda- 
mentally opposed to the doctrines held in the three 
preceding centuries : yet surely they would not have 
dared to assert, with such a mass of evidence before 
them, that they were preaching the same doctrine 
which had always been preached. They would have 
taken the bolder and more consistent ground of say- 
ing, that the Fathers who preceded them had gra- 
dually corrupted the purity of the gospel. But 
their language was the very opposite of this. They 
drew up the exposition of their faith in the plainest 
and strongest terms, explaining every article so as 
to meet the varied objections and subtle sophistry of 



CONCLUSION. 



473 



conflicting heresies : they were driven to assert 
the divinity of Christ with more minuteness and pre- 
cision of language than it had ever been necessary 
to use before ; and yet they asserted, that every arti- 
cle of their belief had been held and preached from 
the days of the apostles to their own. Nor did any 
person venture to rise up and contradict them by 
saying, that the catholic church for the first three 
centuries had believed in the simple humanity of 
Jesus Christ, 

But we are told by modern Unitarians, that such 
was the belief of the early Fathers : and that the 
reader may be able to understand what is the point 
in dispute between the Unitarians and ourselves, I 
will quote some of their own assertions concerning 
the doctrines of the early ages of Christianity. 

" It is absolutely necessary, that the less learned 
" should be told, what upon inquiry will be found to 
" be undeniably true, viz. that the Fathers of the 
" first three centuries, and consequently, all Chris- 
" tian people, for upwards of three hundred years 
" after Christ, till the council of Nice, were gene- 
6i rally Unitarians, what is now called either Arian 
" or Socinian V This is one of the many passages, 
in which modern writers have spoken of the Arians 
and Socinian s, as if their creeds were the same. 
The Arians at the time of the council of Nice pro- 
fessed to believe, that when God determined to 
create matter (ryv yevyryv <f>vaiv) he first created his 
Son, the Word, and that this Word was Christ. 
(Athanas. Orat. II. c. Arian. 24. vol. I. p. 492.) Was 
Mr. Lindsey aware of this, when he wrote the above 
sentence ? Or would he have subscribed the solemn 
b Lindsey, Apology, p. 23, 24. 



474 



CONCLUSION. 



declaration which was appended to one of their Con- 
fessions of faith, " If any one say that the Son of Mary 
" is a mere man, let him be anathema c ?" 

" The Unitarians have made it evident from un- 
" doubted testimonies of the Fathers, that the opin- 
" ion of the Ante-Nicene doctors was either tho- 
" roughly Arian, or very near being so, unquestion- 
" ably nearer to the error wherein to Arius had 
" fallen, than to the fancies of the schoolmen, or, 
" which is all one, to the decretory articles of our 
" modern Homoousians." Gilbert Gierke, Ante-Ni- 
csenismus, praef. 

" The great body of primitive Christians, both 
" Jews and Gentiles, for the two first centuries and 
" upwards, were Unitarians and believers in the 
e< simple humanity of Jesus Christ." Belsham's Calm 
Inquiry, p. 255. 

When the modern Unitarians profess their belief 
in the simple humanity of Christ, they mean this. 
They believe that Jesus had only one nature, viz. 
the human : that he was in every sense of the term 
a mere man, born in the ordinary way ; that he had 
no preexistence : that he was not in any sense of the 
term God, except as Moses or Elijah might be called 
God, when they received a divine commission. It 
is true, that between this doctrine and that of the 
first Socinians there have been many and various 
shades of difference. Mr. Belsham himself says, 
" In the simple form in which they [Lindsey, 
" Priestley, &c] professed it, [Unitarianism,] it 
" differed almost as much from Socinianism as it did 
" from Athanasianism itself d ." It is plain therefore, 

c Et rt? avBfomcw [aovov Xeyei tqv d Works of Dr. Parr, vol. 
4k Mapicct; vlov, avdBe^a'iaTa. Ath. VIII. p. 155' 

de Synodis, vol. I. p. 743. 



CONCLUSION. 



475 



that either Socinianism or Unitarianism must be 
wrong. Some have approached nearer to the Arian 
notions : some have allowed that religious worship 
may be paid to Christ : some have believed that since 
his ascension he has existed in a much more exalted 
state. Many other variations might be pointed out ; 
but, without examining them separately, I assert, 
upon the authority of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 
that the doctrine which they held is wholly irrecon- 
cileable with any modification of the Unitarian 
creed. 

There is not one of the Ante-Nicene writers from 
Barnabas to Lactantius, who does not mention that 
Christ was born of a virgin. This circumstance 
alone destroys the notion of Christ being born in the 
ordinary way. The Unitarians deny that Christ 
was born of a virgin : they reject all idea of his 
miraculous conception : and yet they claim the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers as agreeing with themselves ! 

There is not one of these Fathers who does not 
speak of Christ being made man, of his coming in 
the flesh. The expressions Qeo$ havOpwirvjo-af, God 
becoming man, Seog bvapicwQeis, God being incar- 
nate, are very common in their writings, and may 
frequently be found in the preceding quotations. 
Had these Fathers been Unitarians, had they be- 
lieved that Jesus Christ was a mere man, could they 
or would they have spoken of him in this way ? 

At N°. 45, 133, and 259, I have quoted the 
creeds of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Ori- 
gen, and at p. 73. I have asked whether modern 
Unitarians would subscribe these creeds. Most as- 
suredly they would not : at least, if they do, they 
must believe that Jesus Christ was incarnate, that 



476 



CONCLUSION. 



he was born of a virgin, that he was the Maker of 
heaven and earth : that he was man and God. If 
the Unitarians, by adopting these early creeds, ac- 
knowledge their belief in these doctrines, then there 
is little or no difference between us : but if they re- 
ject these doctrines, then they reject the authority 
of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen ; and 
what becomes of their assertion, that the Fathers of 
the three first centuries were Unitarians ? 

If we look to the history of heresies, we shall 
find more reasons for thinking that the simple hu- 
manity of Christ was not the doctrine of the first 
ages. It is true, that there were persons in very 
early times, who believed that our Saviour was a 
mere man. The names of Ebion, Cerinthus, Car- 
pocrates, and others are recorded, who denied that 
there was any thing miraculous in his conception or 
birth ; but they differed greatly among themselves : 
and some of them allowed, that a sort of divine nature 
belonged to Christ. There is a curious passage in 
Athanasius, from which it would appear, that in his 
opinion no heretic before Arius really denied the di- 
vinity of Christ : he calls the Arian heresy t«v aXXav 
alpeo-ecov ldyoaf\v kou TpvylaV exeivai pev yap 77 7repi to 
acofjia Kai tyjv evav6poo7TY)o-iv tov Kvpiov vXav&VTai, al fxev 
ovTug, al eKeivcog KaTaipevtio'pevai, yj prfioXwg eTri^e^yjfx^Kevai 
tov Kvpiov, a>$ 'lovftaioi vo^i^ovTeg €7rXavvj$Y)crav' avTY] &e \kovy\ 
[MaviKOQTepov e/V avTYjv tyjv QeoTYjTa KaTaTeToXfxriKe Xeyovva 
fXY$oXtog elvai tov Xoyov, fxvj^e tov naTepa ae) naTepa elvai. 
Epist. ad Episc. Mgypt. et Lyb. IT. vol. I. p. 287-8. 
He probably thought that the former heretics all be- 
lieved Christ td be God, or an emanation from 
God, but they denied either the union of the divine 
and human natures in Jesus, or the reality of the 



CONCLUSION. 



477 



body of Jesus. Athanasius certainly does not repre- 
sent Paul of Samosata as believing Jesus to have 
been a mere man in the Unitarian sense, though 
this is generally said to have been his belief, see 
vol. I. p. 229. 273. 510-1. 640-1. 739- 920. 938. 
942. vol. II. p. 35. and p. 397. of this work. Their 
followers were few : and what is most important, 
the Fathers of each of the three first centuries 
have left the most unequivocal declarations, that 
they believed these notions to be heretical. The 
reader is referred to N°. 57. for the opinion of 
Irenaeus; to N°. 105, 106. for that of Tertul- 
lian : and to N°. 259. for that of Origen. In 
these places they expressly declare, that they did 
not agree with those persons who believed Jesus 
Christ to be a mere man, or who denied his pre- 
existence. Again I ask, how then could Irenaeus, 
Tertullian, and Origen agree with the Unitarians, 
who do believe Jesus Christ to be a mere man, and 
who do deny his preexistence ? Beside which it is 
notorious, that the prevailing heresies in the second 
and third centuries were of those who denied the 
human nature of Christ. Marcion, Valentinus, and 
others of the same school, were so convinced of Jesus 
Christ being God, that they could not believe him to 
be man : they held, that his body was an illusion : 
which makes it extremely improbable, that the ma- 
jority of Christians in those days believed in the 
simple humanity of Christ. The same conviction 
led in the third century to the Patripassian and Sa- 
bellian heresies e . The leaders of these sects could 

e The Sabellian heresy may litis : Justin Martyr, about the 
be traced back to a period long year 140, condemned some 
antecedent to the time of Sabel- opinions which were very si- 



478 



CONCLUSION. 



not persuade themselves that Christ was a man : 
and one taught that he was actually God the Fa- 
ther ; the other believed that he was an emanation 
from God. 

It is not my intention to enter at length into the 
controversy between bishop Horsley and Dr. Priest- 
ley, concerning the identity of the Ebionites and 
Nazarenes : but a perusal of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
enables me to make a few remarks upon some of the 
assertions of Dr. Priestley. He dwelt much upon the 
fact of the Ebionites, who followed so close upon 
the apostolical times, being Unitarians : and because 
the first writers did not speak of them as heretics, 
he wishes to conclude that these doctrines were not 
thought heretical ; but that at first the majority of 
Christians agreed with them, i. e. were Unitarians. 
The support which Dr. Priestley wishes to derive 
for the Unitarian opinions will be destroyed, if we 
can prove either of these two things ; that the Ebi- 
onites were called heretics by the early writers ; or 
that the doctrines of the Ebionites were fdifFerent 
from those of the modern Unitarians : for if the 
Ebionites and the modern Unitarians did not hold 
the same opinions, one of them must be wrong. I 
shall therefore proceed to comment upon some of 
the assertions advanced by Dr. Priestley. 

1. He lays great stress upon the fact of the Ebi- 
onites not believing in the miraculous conception of 
Jesus : upon which I would observe, that Origen in- 
forms us there were two sects of EbioniteSy and that 
one sect of them did believe in the miraculous con- 

milar : (Apol. I. 63. p. 8j. ryllus, and Noetus, led very na- 
Dial. cum Try ph. 128. p. 221.) rurally to Sabellianism. 
and the notions of Praxeas, Be- 



CONCLUSION. 



479 



ception. (c. Celsum V. 61. p. 625. and 65. p. 628. 
Euseb. H. E. III. 27. p. 121. Theodorit. Haer. Fab. 
II. 1. vol. IV. p. 219.) 

2. Dr. Priestley says, that Tertullian is the first 
Christian writer who expressly calls the Ebionites 
heretics, and that Irenaeus never confounds them 
with the heretics f . This assertion is not true. 
Dr. Priestley indeed says in another place s, that Ire- 
naeus nowhere directly calls the Ebionites heretics. 
But this expression will not save him from the charge 
of making an unfounded assertion. In the first place 
Irenaeus states his doubts very strongly whether the 
Ebionites can be saved, on account of their disbe- 
lief in the divinity of Christ, which approaches very 
near to a direct declaration of their being here- 
tics h . But he expressly calls them heretics, as the 
reader will perceive, who instead of confining him- 
self to the passages where the word Ehionite occurs, 
refers back to the former part of the argument. At 
p. 98. Irenaeus writes thus : " Since the means of 
" detecting and convincing all heretics are various 
" and multifarious, and we have proposed to our- 
" selves to refute all according to their peculiar 
" tenets, we have deemed it necessary to begin by 
" noticing the source and root of them." He then 
mentions several persons, the discussion of whose 
doctrines occupies the remainder of the book. He 
begins with Simon Magus ; and observes of him, 
that all heresies took their rise with him 1 . He 



f History of early Opinions, 
vol. III. p. 201. 
g Vol, I. p. 281. 
h III. 19. 1. p. 212. 
5 Eusebius also says, i( We 



" have received, that Simon 
" Magus was the beginning of 
" every heresy.''' II. E. II. 13. 
All the Fathers agreed in this 
statement. 



\ 



480 



CONCLUSION. 



then notices Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Car- 
pocrates, Cerinthus, the Ehionites, &c. It is surely 
impossible to deny, that this classification directly 
and expressly includes the Ebionites in the number 
of heretics : and when Irenaeus has finished his enu- 
meration, he says, " From these, who have now been 
" mentioned, many varieties of heresies have been 
" derived, because many of them, or rather all of 
" them, wish to be teachers, and to leave the heresy 
" to which they belonged ; and imagining one new 
ec doctrine after another, they set up themselves as 
" the inventors k ." 

But there is another passage which Dr. Priestley 
must have overlooked, where Irenaeus, in the com- 
pass of one short sentence, directly calls the Ebi- 
onites heretics. Speaking of the principles of the 
Gospel, he says, " There is such a certainty about 
" the Gospels, that even heretics themselves bear 
" testimony to them, and each of them endeavours 
" to confirm his own doctrine out of them. For the 
" IZbioniteS) who use the Gospel of Matthew only, 
" &c. &C 1 ." Surely Irenaeus, by mentioning the 
Ebionites first, must have believed them to be here- 
tics in no small or unimportant points : so that Dr. 
Priestley's argument, which is drawn from the fact 



k Ab his auteni, qui prsedicti 
sunt, jam multse propagines 
multarum haeresum factee sunt, 
eo quod multi ex ipsis, immo 
omnes velint doctores esse, et 
abscedere quidem ab hseresi in 
qua fuerunt ; aliud autem dogma 
ab alia sententia, et deinceps al- 
teram ab altera componentes, 
nove docere insistunt, semet- 
ipsos adinventores sentential, 
quamcumque compegerint,enar- 



rantes. I. 28, 1. p. 106. 

1 III. 1 1 , 7. p. 1 89. Tanta est 
autem circa evangelia ha?c firmi- 
tas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimo- 
nium reddant eis, et ex ipsis 
egrediens unusquisque eorum 
conetur suam confirmare doc- 
trinam. Ebionaei etenim eo 
Evangelio, quod est secundum 
Mattheum, solo utentes, ex illo 
ipso convincuntur, non recte 
prsesumentes de Domino. 



CONCLUSION. 481 

of their not being called heretics till the time of 
Tertullian, falls to the ground. 

3. Dr. Priestley concludes one of his chapters with 
this remark, " that no person can reflect upon this 
" subject without thinking it a little extraordinary, 
" that the Jewish Christians, in so early an age as 
" they are spoken of by the denomination of Ebion- 
" ites, should be acknowledged to believe nothing 
" either of the divinity, or even of the preexistence 
" of Christ, if either of those doctrines had been 
" taught them by the apostles k ." The remark cer- 
tainly seems to carry with it some weight ; but the 
force of it ceases at once, if we remember that the 
Ebionites openly rejected the authority of the apo- 
stles. Eusebius tells us, that " they used only the 
" Gospel according to the Hebrews, and made little 
" account of the others 1 :" and Irenaeus, whose au- 
thority is much more valuable, and his expressions 
more precise, tells us, that " they used only the Gos- 
" pel of St. Matthew m ." This alone might make us 
cease to wonder, that the Ebionites disbelieved the 
divinity or preexistence of Christ, if either of 
these doctrines had been taught them by the apo- 
stles. But the reader must not suppose that the 
three other Gospels were all which the Ebionites re- 
jected of the holy scriptures. Those primitive Uni- 
tarians, who were not looked upon as heretical by 
the early church, took the liberty of getting rid of 
all St. Paul's Epistles at once, calling that apostle an 
apostate from the law n . Surely there can no longer 



k History of early Opinions, 

III. p. 2IO. 

1 III. 27. p. 121. 

m I. 26, 2. p. 105 ; and HI. 



1 1, 7. p. 189. 

n Irenseus I. 26. 2. p. 105. 
Origen. c. Celsum, V. 65. p. 628. 
Eus. H. E. III. 27. p. 121. 

I i 



482 



CONCLUSION. 



be any doubt whether the Ebionites were heretical. 
If they were not, the whole catholic church from 
that time to the present has been in the grossest 
heresy ; and so have all the Unitarians, who admits 
not only the Gospels, but the whole of St. Paul's 
Epistles. 

4. I would also notice some other points of the 
Ebionite creed, which if they were correct, must 
bring, not only ourselves, but the Unitarians also, 
under the charge of grievous error. The Ebionites 
retained all the customs of the Jewish law, thinking 
that the new revelation made by Christy and justifi- 
cation through him, did not dispense with them 0 . 
They denied the inspiration of the prophets, and 
thought that they spoke from themselves p. 

Lastly, Dr. Priestley has entirely suppressed, that 
though the Ebionites believed Christ to be a mere 
man with respect to his birth, they thought that an 
angel resided in him c i. I do not mention this part 
of their creed with a view to vindicate the absurdity 
of it ; but rather to shew, that their opinions were 
not free from vain and unfounded imaginations, and 
that they differed essentially from those of the mo- 
dern Unitarians. 



° Irenseus ib. and V. i, 3. 
p. 293. Tertull. de Prescript, 
hseret. 33. p. 214. Origen. c. 
Cels. II. 1. p. 3 8 5> 3 86 - and 
V. 61. p. 625. and Horn. III. 
in Gen. 5. p. 68. 

p Method. Sympos. p. 113. 
ore Be irept rov tov nvevparoq eo~(paX- 
[A.£voi, coq ol 'Efiiovouoi, ef Ibiaq Kwr\- 
<reaq rovq itpocp^raq XeXaXrjKevai (pi- 

XoveiKovvreq. This may explain a 
passage in Epiphanius, which 
Dr. Priestley did not understand. 



Epiphanius says of the Ebion- 
ites, " they detest the pro- 
"phets:" (Haer. 30.) which 
Dr. Priestley thinks altogether 
improbable, and he adds erro- 
neously, that Epiphanius is the 
only writer who asserts any such 
thing. (III. p. 217.) It appears 
that Methodius asserts the same 
thing, and enables us to under- 
stand what Epiphanius meant. 

1 Tertullian. de Came Christi, 
14. p. 3 19. 



CONCLUSION. 



483 



I shall close this discussion with repeating what 
was said above, that if the Ebionites were heretical, 
the early church was not Unitarian : if the Unita- 
tarians think that they were not heretical, why do 
they differ from them on such fundamental points ? 

In the course of the preceding pages, I have been 
led to point out, that several statements made by 
the Unitarians were unfounded. It had been as- 
serted, that Jesus Christ was nowhere called Cre- 
ator, Ay (Miovpyoc I have shewn at p. 58. that this 
epithet is applied to Christ by nearly all the Fathers. 
It has been asserted, that Christ is not spoken of as 
an object of religious worship. I have shewn at 
p. 42. and 143. that all the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
considered it a duty to worship Christ. It had been 
said, that the word Almighty was never applied to 
Christ. I have proved at p. 163, &c. that in many 
places the Fathers called Christ Almighty. The 
reader will perhaps remember the incorrect state- 
ments which I quoted from Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Jones, 
and Mr. Belsham, concerning the words of St. Paul, 
Rom. ix. 5. (p. 87, &c.) and the false assertions 
which had been made concerning Acts xx. 28. (p. 
18, &c.) In their interpretations of other texts, the 
Unitarians have equally forgotten that they are op- 
posing themselves to all the writers of the three first 
centuries. Thus they say, that the creation of the 
world is not attributed to Christ in John i. 3. or 
Heb. i. 2. : and yet I will venture to assert, that 
there is not one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers who 
quotes these passages, without shewing, beyond all 
doubt, that he understood these texts of all things 
being created by Christ. I repeat, that as to the 
opinion of the Fathers, and their unanimous consent 

I i 2 



484 



CONCLUSION. 



upon this point, there is no room for contradiction 
or uncertainty : it only remains for the Unitarians 
to say, that all the Fathers were mistaken, that they 
were not such good judges of the style and language 
of the apostles as we are, though Greek was the ver- 
nacular language of many of them, and some lived 
so near to the time of St. John, that it is hardly pos- 
sible to suppose them so grossly ignorant of his 
meaning. 

To many persons it will appear a necessary conse- 
quence, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed Christ 
to be God, when they find him spoken of as the Cre- 
ator of the world : as being conceived by the Virgin 
of the Holy Ghost ; as having appeared to the patri- 
archs ; as having taken our human flesh ; as being 
worshipped, &c. &c. But I have also brought for- 
ward many instances, in which the Fathers expressly 
say, that Christ was God and man, that he was be- 
gotten of the substance of God, that he had existed 
from all eternity, that he was one with the Father. 
Will any rational person believe that the Fathers 
would have used these expressions, if they had held 
that Jesus Christ was a mere man ? 

We may observe also, that there is not the slight- 
est trace of the notion of Christ's divinity having 
been introduced by later writers, and having been 
unknown to those of earlier times. The reader is 
requested to compare the short Epistles of Ignatius 
with the voluminous works of Origen, and to see 
whether the doctrines which the Unitarians deny, 
are not to be found in the one as plainly as in the 
other. If this had not been the case, we need not 
have given up our argument : for who would ex- 
pect, that in seven short letters written by a man 



CONCLUSION. 



485 



who was then on his road to execution, we should 
find a declaration of all the articles of his belief? 
And yet Ignatius several times calls Christ God, he 
speaks of him as God born in the flesh, conceived of 
a virgin by the Holy Ghost, as being with the Fa- 
ther before the worlds, as existing in the Father, 
as being eternal and invisible, and yet for our sakes 
becoming visible. It is trifling to ask, whether a 
man who wrote this, believed Jesus Christ to be a 
mere human being : we may find his divinity ex- 
pressed in more minute and circumstantial terms by 
Origen and the later Fathers, when they were driven 
by opposite heresies to express themselves precisely, 
but it is evident to the plainest understanding, that 
Ignatius acknowledged two natures in Christ, that 
he believed him to be God, and to have been so 
from all eternity. It is for the Unitarians to shew, 
how he could believe Christ to have been God from 
all eternity, and yet not have believed him to be 
consubstantial with the Father. 

To sum up the whole, I conceive it to be proved 
by the preceding quotations, that the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers believed Jesus Christ to have two natures, 
the human and the divine : that they believed him 
to have existed as God before he took our human 
nature; that he was begotten of the substance of 
God, and was united with him in essence, though 
distinct in person ; that it was he who created the 
worlds and who appeared to the patriarchs : that 
he had existed from all eternity, and though pro- 
ceeding from the Father, was always coexistent 
with him, as the effulgence of light is with the 
light from which it emanates : in one word, that 
the Son was as truly God, and truly eternal, I 

I i 3 



486 



CONCLUSION. 



mean in the same sense and fulness of expression, 
as God the Father. 

I must now make a few remarks concerning the 
assertion of the Arians, that the writings of the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers support their doctrines. It 
cannot be pressed too strongly upon the theological 
student, that between Arians and Unitarians the 
difference is immense. It is fortunate also for the 
defenders of the catholic doctrines, that the pecu- 
liarities of the Arian creed lie in a small compass. 
Some difficulties have been raised by the distinction 
of Arianism and Semi-Arianism r : but still it is not 
difficult to point out the precise line which separated 
the supporters of the Nicene doctrines from their 
opponents. In this respect it is more easy to combat 
an Arian than an Unitarian. The belief of Unita- 
rians, as observed before, has been so modified and 
altered from the times of Socinus to our own, that it 
is difficult to say what is, and what is not, acknow- 
ledged by them all, as the summary of their faith : 
and in endeavouring to disprove any of their tenets, 
we may unintentionally hurt the feelings of some 
who call themselves Unitarians, but who have not 
yet brought themselves to go all lengths with their 
acknowledged leaders. But it is not so with the 
Arian tenets. The opinions of the Arians are on 
record as a matter of history s : and the catholics at 
the council of Nice very wisely brought the points 
under dispute into a small compass, and if I may 

r Seethe tenets of the Semi- ad Episc. iEg. et Lyb. p. 281. 

Arians in Epiphanius, Hser. and their subterfuges and eva- 

LXXIII. vol. I. p. 845. sions are clearly exposed in §. 19, 

s They are stated very fully &c. of the same treatise, p. 224, 

by Athanasius, de Decret. Syn. &c. 
Nic. 6. vol. I. p. 213. and Epist. 



CONCLUSION. 



487 



so say, drove their opponents into a corner, and ten- 
dered to them the shibboleth of Catholicism, which, 
according as they accepted or refused it, proved them 
to be catholics or Arians. Thus the following ques- 
tions were put to persons suspected of Arianism : 
Was there ever a time when the Son did not exist ? 
Was the Son of one substance with the Father? 
These two questions were found to be the only 
tests which the Arians could not evade. They were 
willing to call Jesus Christ God, and to say that he 
was very God, a\vj6ivo$ Seo$ 1 ; they allowed that he 
was begotten of the Father; and they expressed 
great horror at the idea of Christ being a creature. 
But they constantly affirmed, that there was a time 
when Christ was not, and they denied his consub- 
stantiality with the Father. Accordingly we find 
that the creed, which the council adopted, provided 
against every subterfuge and equivocation upon these 
two articles : and the questions given above were 
the touchstone by which all persons were tried, 
whose faith was in any way doubtful. 

It is needless to observe, that the difference be- 
tween catholics and Arians was slight, when com- 
pared with that between catholics and Unitarians : 
but whoever is acquainted with the history of the 
council of Nice will know, that the orthodox party 
by no means considered the dispute to turn upon 
mere words : nor can we ever say with truth, that 
the difference between the two parties in those days 
was small or unimportant. If Christ was of a dif- 
ferent substance from the Father, and yet each is 
God, it would surely be very difficult to comprehend 

1 Some of them would not agree to this. Athanas. Epist. ad 
Episc. ^Egypt. et Lyb. vol. I. p. 281 and 283. 

I i 4 



488 



CONCLUSION. 



that there are not two Gods : and if there was a 
time when Christ was not, it is almost impossible 
to conceive, that Christ, who took our nature upon 
him, was that very God who had existed from all 
eternity. We cannot be surprised therefore, that 
both parties were anxious to claim the early Fathers 
as supporting their respective tenets : and we cannot 
quote the Ante-Nicene Fathers as agreeing perfectly 
with ourselves, unless we shew that their doctrines 
are opposed to those of the Arians, as well as to 
those of the Unitarians. 

But the two tests mentioned above will make this 
part of our task comparatively easy. If we can shew 
that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed Jesus Christ 
to have been begotten of the substance of the Fa- 
ther, and to have existed from all eternity, the lead- 
ing tenets of the Arians are overthrown. But these 
two points are surely proved, even to demonstration, 
by the quotations in the preceding pages. With 
respect to the consubstantiality of the Father and 
the Son, the reader is referred to N°. 305 : and with 
respect to his eternity, the expressions used at N°. 
SI, 48, 100, 159, 206, 262, 300, 301, 302, 303, 
316, 318, 320, 324, p. 421. seem to leave no doubt, 
that the persons who used them never imagined a 
time when Christ did not exist. 

Seeing therefore that we are encompassed about 
with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us hold fast 
the profession of our faith, and, without forgetting 
that charity which becomes true believers, let us 
earnestly contend for the faith which was once de- 
livered to the saints. We have indeed a cloud of 
witnesses to prove that the faith delivered by our 
Lord to his apostles, and by the apostles to their 



CONCLUSION. 



489 



successors, was essentially that which our church 
professes and cherishes. If the preceding pages 
should have unfolded this series of testimony, so as 
to convince the mind of any one person, who before 
was wavering ; if they should lead any one sincere 
inquirer after truth to a conviction of his own belief 
being that of the primitive church, the earnest hopes 
of the writer will not be altogether disappointed : 
and let us also hope and pray, that He who has pro- 
mised, that blasphemy against the Son of Man shall 
be forgiven, will hereafter have mercy upon those, 
who having a zeal, but not after knowledge, have 
been led by ignorance and error to speak lightly of 
his holy name. 



INDEX I. 



TEXTS ILLUSTRATED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS 

WORK. 



Genesis i. 26. p. 2, 40, 47, 293. 

424. 

iii. 8. p. 38. 

— 22. p. 47. 

vi. 13. p. 38. 

vii. 16. p. 52. 
xi. 5. p. 38, 52. 

xvii. 1. p. 38, 152. 

— 22. p. 52. 

xviii. 1. p. 38, 52. 

xix. 24.p.38,52,53,78. 

xxii. 11, 12. p. 39, 361. 
xxviii. 13. p. 39. 

— 15. " p. 152. 

xxxi. n, 13. p. 39, 361. 

xxxii. 24. p. 39, 52. 

i5 2 . 3°5- 

— 28. p. 50. 

— 30. p. 177. 
xxxv. 1, 9. p. 39, 361. 
xlvi. 3. p. 153. 
xlix. 9. p. 246. 

— 11. 24. 

— 22. 133. 
Exodus iii. 2. p. 36, 39. 

— 8. p. 79. 

— I 4- P- 39> 79> 8o - 
vi. 2. p. 52. 

xiii. 21. p. 361. 

xiv. 19. p. 361. 

XX. 2. p. 40, I52, I53. 

xxiii. 20. p. 226. 361. 

xxxiii. 11. p. 177. 

— 20. p. 222. 
.vi. 1. p. 40. 
xi. 23. p. 52. 

xxxi. 2, 3. p. 52. 

xxxii. 10. p. 151. 

— 35- P-3H. 
v. 13. p. 40, 47, 308. 
ii. 7. p. 149, 363. 



Levit. 

Numb. 

Deut. 



Joshua 
Psalm 



Psalm 



Prov. 



Isaiah 



viii. 5. 


p. 208, 222. 


xxiv. p. 


43, 176, 263. 


xxxiv. 8. 


p. 142. 


— 11. 


p. 9. 


xlv. 


p. 42, 289. 


- 6. p. 


78, 361, 424. 


xlvii. 5. 


P- 45- 


1. 1. 


p. 78. 


lxxii. 


p. 4 J > 234. 


lxxvi. 1. 


p. 83. 


lxxxii. 1. 


p. 78. 


— 6. 


p. 79. 


Ixxxvii. 4, 5. p. 230, 




240. 


xcvi. 10. 


p. 49. 


xcix. 


P- 45- 


ciii. 14. 


p. 154- 


ex. 1. 


p. 77> 248. 


— 3- 


p. 318. 


cxiv. 3. 


p. 259. 


ii. 6. 


P- r 55- 


iii. 19. 


P- *75- 


viii. 22. 


P- 47, i75, 




360, 421. 


ix. 1. 


p. 265, 360. 


i. 18. 


P- T 54- 


vi. 1, 9. 


P- 43- 


vii. 10. 


p. 101. 


— 14- 


p. 210, 407. 


ix. 2. 


p. 302. 


— 6. 


p. 36, 51, 99. 


148, 207, 314, 407. 


XI. 1. 


p. 83. 


xxxin. 20. p. IOO. 


xxxv. 3,6. p. 363, 370. 


xl. 3. 


p. 140, 361. 


xlii. 13. 


P- 358. 


xliv. 6. 


p. 360. 


— 24. 


p. 58. 


xlv. 11-15.P. 269, 36 J. 


liii. 12. 


p. 294. 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Isaiah 


lxiii. 9. p. 36, 100, 363. 


J ohn 


1. 13. 


p. 210. 




Ixv. 1. p. 


78, 83, 271. 




T A \\ 

14. p. 


z 7> 3°3» 37 1 - 


Jerero. 


xi. 19' 


p. 49. 




T Q 


p. IOO, 




xxiii. 18. 


p. 271. 




ii. 19. 


p. I 80. 


xjZQK. 


xi. 19. 


p. 4. 




111. 6. 


p. 2IO. 




xxx vi. 26. 


p. 4. 




— 13. 


p. 209, 37I. 


"Tinmpl 


iii. 25. 


p. 229, 279. 




j 6. 


n a nfii 
p. 300. 




vii. 13. 


p. 229? 246. 






p. 96. 


Hosea 




p. 370. 




vi. 62. 


F' 




xii. 5. 


P- J 53- 




v 1 1 1 . 40. 


p. 291. 


Zech. 


ii. 8, 9. 


p. 164. 




x. 18. 


T) O fil 


Malachi 


iii. 1. 


p. 30. 140. 




xii. 41. 


F* 




iv. 2. 


p. 24O. 




xiii. 31. 


P- J 34- 


Wisdom i. 7. 


p. 298. 




xiv. 6. 


p. 185. 291. 




vn. 25. 


P- 347- 




— 9- 


P- 3°3- 


Matt. 


i. 18. 


p. 55. 




— 23. 


p. 129. 




iii. 3. 


p. 140. 




xvi. 15. 


P- 237. 




— 17- 


p. 149, 442. 




xvn. 5. p. 134, 360, 




ym. 3. 


p. 227. 






37i- 




ix. 20. 


p. 228. 




— 10. 


P- 237- 




x. 39. 


p. 124. 


. . 
Acts 


ii. 24. 


p. 4. 274. 




xi. 10. 


p. 140. 




— 33- 


p. 238. 




— 27. p. 


91, 177, 222. 




-36. 


p. 417. 




238, 268, 300. 




ix. 20. 


p. 84. 




XVlll. 2. 


P- i5- 




x. 36. 


p. 271. 




20. 


P- 327. 




xx. 28. 


p. 17. 




xix. 28. 


p. 288. 




xxviii. 25 


p. 43. 




xxiii. 34. 


P- 175- 


R.om . 


i- 3, 4- P- 


10, 86, 135, 




xxvi. 38. 


p. 292, 330. 






241. 




— 39- 


p. 381. 




vi. 2. 


p. 214. 




— 41. 


p. 253, 279. 




— 10. 


p. 213. 216. 




xxviii. 20 


p. 327. 




— 16. 


p. 214. 


Mark 


i. 3. 


p. 140. 




viii. 3. 


p. 9. 




— 11. 


p. 149. 




— 10. 


p. 214. 


Luke 


i. 2. 


p. 272. 




— is- 


P- 334- 




— 33- 


P . 83. 




— 24. 


p. 216. 




— 35- 


p. 240. 




ix. 5. p. 


10, 86, 267, 




— 43- 


p. no. 




362, 371, 424. 




11. 49. 


p. 414. 




xj. 36. 


P- 57- 




iii. 4. 


p. 140. 




xii. 19. 


p. 311. 




— 22. 


p. 149, 442. 




xiv. 8. 


p. 214. 




iv. 34. 


P- 433- 


t fnr 


i. 24. 


p. 174. 




v. 20. 


p. 228. 




ii. 6, 8. 


P- i75- 




vi. 17. 


p. 231. 




— 8. 


p. 224. 




x. 22. 


p. 232. 




v. 7. 


p. 262. 




xi. 49. 


P- i75- 




vi. 19, 20. p. 25. 




xxii. 44. 


p. 382. 




viii. 6. 


P- 55. 72. 


John 


i. 3. p. 


55. 81, 156, 




x. 9. 


p. 40. 




3°3> 3 ] 


[5, 320, 360. 




xii. 28. 


p. 163. 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



1 Cor. xiv. 19. 

xv. 2 1 . 

— 22. 

— 27. 

2 Cor. ii. 17. 

iv. 6. 

— TO. 

v. 8 — 10. 

— T 5- 

— 19. 

2T. 

X. 4. 

— 5- 

xi. 2. 

xii. 19. 

xiii. 4. p. 
Galat. i. 1. p. 

— 11. p. 

ii. 19. 

iii. 20. 

iv. 7. 

v. 25. 
Eph. i. 9. 

— 10. 

— 13. 

— 23. 

iii. 3. 

iv. 1 1-2. 

— 23. 

— 32. 
5- 

Phil. 11.6,7^.7,9. 

— 9. 
iii. 14. 

Coloss. i. 15. p. 13, 
287, 301, 
321, 324* 



p. 56. 
p. 56. 
p. 97. 
P- 95- 



P- 
P- 
P 
P 

215= 



217. 
217. 

177- 
212. 

167. 
216. 
p .216. 
p. 214. 
216. 
286. 
163. 
217. 
275- 



16. 



P- 55 



— 19. 

— 20. 
ii. 2. 

— 3- 

— 9. p. 126, 

— i5- 

— 20. 



339> 372. 
339> 37 2 - 
p. 215. 

p. 278. 
p. 150. 
p. 216. 

p. 85. 

p. 70. 
p. 215. 
p. 126. 

p. 85. 
p. 163. 
p. 215. 
p. 212. 
p. 114. 

H7»358. 
410. 

P- 133- 
p. 217. 
120, 145, 

302, 3°3* 
326, 337, 
422. 
» 81, 324, 
424. 
p. 126. 
p. 25. 
p. 217. 
p. 174. 
412, 426. 

P- 372. 
p. 214. 



Coloss. 



1 Thess 
2Thess, 

1. Tim. 



2 Tim. 

Titus 

Heb. 



1. Pet. 



2 Pet. 
1 John 



Jude 
Revel. 



111. 3. 

— 12-5. 

iii. 11. 

i. 12. 

ii. 8. 

ii. 5. 

iii. 16. p 

v. 21. 

i. 10. 

iv. 1. 

ii. 11. 

T 3- 

i. 1. 

— 2. 
— 3^4-P 

ii. 7. 9. 

— 16-8. 

— 10. 

iii. 1. 

iv. 12. 

— 15- 

v. 2. 
xi. 3. 

ii. 3. 

— 24. 

iii. 14-7. 

— 18. 

— 19. 

iv. 6. 
i. 1. 
i. 1. 

iv. 3. 

v. 20. 
4- 

i. 1. 

— 4- 
-8. p. 

ii. 8. 

v - 5- 
xi. 17. 
xii. 

— 5- 
xix. 6. 

— 10. 

— 13- 

xxi. 6. 

xxii. 9. 



78, 



r.4. 



p. 217 
p. 166 
P- 23, 213 
p. 114 
p. 114 
p. 294 

P 

27. T 58,i7 
40 
p. 1 

P- "5 
p. 115 
p. 1 12 
p. 113 
P- 305 
P- 54. 55. 56 
• 1°, 177*387 
p. 208 
p. 9 

P- 57 
P- 36 
p. 272 
p. 9 
p. 9 

P- 55 
p. 142 
p. 216 
p. 165 
P- 215. 253 
p. 200 
p. 200, 216 
p. 114 
P- 3°6 
P- 327. 363 
P- 3° 6 
P- "5 
P- 383 
p. 80 
164, 238, 268 
p. 68 
p. 246 
p. 268 
p. 247 
p. 441 
p. 164 

P- 359 
3i7 

p. 360, 363 
P- 359 



INDEX II. 



'Ayevvjro? et a,ykvv(\t% y 26. 
Alooveq, 316. 

Apelles, 201. 

Apollinarians, 21, 250, 256. 

Arians, 3, 14, 27, 40, 47, 60, 
106, 177, 232, 281, 34T, 
344* 379> 3 8l > 3 8 5> 4°6> 
435> 438, 4 6 9> 472, 473- 
486. 

Aristides, 434. 

'ApnocyiAov 7jy€7<r6at y 

Belsham, 20, 55, 60, 87, 94, 
138, 160, i6t, 427, 474. 

Beron, (heretic,) 249, 255. 

Blood of God, 17. 

Britain, 186. 

Cerinthus, 191, 197, 476. 

Christ Almighty, 163, 237, 268. 

an Angel, 36, 5 1,5 2, 209. 

■ appeared to the Patriarchs, 
38, 52, 79, 84, 102, 152, 
177, 222, 226, 302, 306, 
309, 361. 425^ 

consubstantial, 102, 346, 

388, 431. 

eternal, 29, 30, 61, 76, 

77> 97> J 34> 176, 185, 257, 
266, 305, 344, 385, 386, 

3 8 7> 399» 4°i> 4°4> 4°5> 

408, 412, 417, 421. 

everywhere, 171,259,384. 

higher than angels, 1 1, 40, 

54, 171, 203, 208, 218, 290, 

32i, 369- 
— in the Father, 29, 59, 123, 

128, 148, 150, 155, 269, 

401, 409, 421, 465. 
. not created, 13, 76, 80, 

82, 203, 254, 300, 395, 401, 

418, 421, 430. 
the Creator, 3, 54, 59, 

80, 81, 96, 104, 112, 117, 

13^ 1 55* l66 > 258, 259, 

264, 273, 293, 315, 324, 



369, 4°i> 4°9> 424. 459- 

Christ the living God, T43, 185. 

Lord of hosts, 43, 123, 

237, 274, 358, 405. 

to be worshipped, 42, 48, 

51, 66, 101, 128, 143, 186, 
1 88, 243, 304, 3 1 8, 359, 409, 
430, 443, 444, 465. 

two natures of, 10, 26, 

30, 49, 62, 67, 85, 97, 101, 
102, 104, 105, 154, 166, 171, 
180, 190, 198, 201, 202, 207, 
210, 218, 221, 223,229,233, 
235, 240, 241, 244, 246, 248, 
249, 251, 252, 254, 255,256, 
258, 261, 262, 265, 269, 272, 
273, 275, 278, 286,290,291, 

29 8 >3°7>3 0 9>3i^3i7>3J 8 > 
321,323,324,325,327,330, 

335>33 8 >339>35 6 > 363>3 6 9> 
37 T >37 2 <37 6 >3 8 i>3 8 3>425> 
428,430, 440, 447, 449, 459, 
460. 

Christus and Chrestus, 142, 
Clarke, Dr. 113, 160, 164, 300. 
Clemens Romanus, 2d Epistle, 
6. 

Clerke, G. 164, 474. 
Consubstantiality, 346, 388. 
Council of Alexandria, 344, 

■ Antioch, sixth, 434. 

* Carthage, 349, 364. 

— Ephesus, third, 107, 

429. 

Creeds, 69, 236, 337, 475. 
' Ebionites, 99, 149, 193, 197, 
I 340, 392, 476, 478. 481. 
j Emmanuel, 86, 101, 186, 210, 

! 37°>4 6 °- 
Encratites, 6t. 

'EiTKpdvtia 115. 

Eusebius 95, 146, 164. 
, Tev/jTo^ et yew/jToi;, 26, 300. 
Ytvou.ou 8l. 



INDEX II. 



Gnostics, 76, 85, 99, 102, 192, 

265^390, 427. 
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 59, 

393- 

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 10, 
176. 

Helix, (heretic,) 249. 
Hierocles, 468. 
Hypostasis, 341. 
I AM, 80, 237. 

Improved Version, 87, 94, 138, 
193, 196, 295, 315, 427. 

Irenaeus, Latin translation of, 
19, 68, 88, 109, 169, 394. 

Israel, etymology of, 50, 153, 
306. 

Jews, their expectation of Christ, 

48, 188. 
corrupted the Septuagint, 

49. 
Jones, 87. 

Joshua, a type of Christ, 49, 

226, 310. 
Lindsey, 31, 34, 42, 59, 69, 

87, 381, 408, 473. 
Logos, 65, no, 175, 183, 271, 

316. 
Lucian, 147. 

Luke St., beginning of, 193, 
202. 

Magi, offerings of, 83, 290. 

Manichaeans, 21. 

Marcion and Marcionites, 21, 
61, 67, 119, 166, 187, T93, 
201, 209, 219, 221, 224, 225, 
23 1 > 265, 336, 477. 

Matthew, St., beginning of, 32, 
193, 202. 

Mediator, 98, 278, 356. 

Miraculous Conception, 28, 32, 
35> 3 6 > 52, 7°> 71, 73, 98, 
101, 106, 179, 189, 193, 
197, 204, 209, 233, 235, 
236, 240, 246, 247, 258, 
262, 263, 264, 269, 272, 

276* 35 6 > 3 6 3> 4°°> 4°7> 

419, 459, 475. 
Montanus, 181. 
Nestorius 106. 



Noetus, 90, 266. 
OiKovopia 70, 268. 
c O[Aoov<rio<; 388, 43 I. 
e O uv, 80, 112. 

Patripassians, 21, 90, 235, 266, 

34L 477- 
Paul of Samosata, 380, 397, 

423, 429. 
Persecution of Decius, 221, 244, 

281, 349, 367, 378. 

Diocletian, 448,450. 

Maxi minus, 435. 

Maxi mus, 244,287. 

Valerian,349, 367, 

378. 
Person, 341. 
Pleroma, 126, 427. 
Polycarp, 68, 88, in, 329. 
Porphyry, 147. 
Praxeas, 235. 

Preexistence of Christ, 2, 3, 7, 
9, 11, 13, 28, 36, 42, 46, 
47, 50, 61, 67, 84, 97, 112, 
173,245,264, 294,315,442. 

Priestley, Dr., 32, 34, 35, 48, 
60, 70, 73, 99, no, 130, 
145, 146, 192, 338, 342, 

343» 347> 47 8 - 
Quadratus, 34. 
Revelations, Book of, 248. 
Rufinus, 91, 125, 169, 281, 

284, 307, 308, 320, 339. 
Sabellius, 36, 95, 267, 341,343, 

373> 378, 420, 477. 
Septuagint, 49. 

Substance, 182, 341, 394,423. 
Syriac Version, iS, 169, 193. 
Tatian's Diatessaron, 196. 
Theodotus, (heretic,) 192. 
Theognostus, 393. 
®eoTo/co?, 106, 433. 
Velentinus and Valentinians,6i, 

101, 102, 201, 210, 250,255, 

265, 277, 340,477. 
Vatican MS. 18. 
Wetstein, 20. 
Whitby, Dr., 6, 59. 
Wisdom of God, 47, 155, 174, 

264, 360. 




pp 1 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



V 



